Is My Wish Broken?

[SociopathFriend]

There's Decks of Many Things flying around in a 5e campaign and so the possibility of gaining a wish.

The DM is fairly loose on rules so my only question is whether this wish is overpowered or not.

"From this moment and onwards, whenever I and I alone intend to, I may cast any spells I have prepared using at least one component an animated undead that I control possesses."

In terms of in-game rules I can command a Zombie/Skeleton/whatever to provide the Somantic or Material components of a spell as their Action instead of myself. So if my hands were bound- a Skeleton could move their hands at my direction and the spell would still work.
It would still only be one spell. 10x Zombies doing the Fireball macarena still is only one Fireball.

[jaappleton]

I’ve seen people get away with much crazier stuff.

[Fable Wright]

Wording? Probably broken and likely to backfire. I'd recommend streamlining it. "Whenever I cast a spell, I may have any undead under my control at the time of casting provide the components in lieu of myself." As worded, it sounds like you may be trying to give yourself as many actions to cast Fireball as you have Undead in one round, or get infinite spells, since you're casting "any spells you have prepared" without mention of slots remaining.

Intent? Probably kosher, but could cause Counterspell weirdness that might bring it to nerf bat, but... well, is it stronger than Resistance to a damage type, forever, for you and all your friends? Maybe. If the undead was restricted to being within 60ft and line of sight, definitely kosher, probably Disadvantage to anyone who tries to counterspell you with a lower level slot.

[Mutazoia]

It's a wish. It's broken by default.

You can try wording your wish thus:

"At any time, when I cast a spell as part of my standard action, bonus action or reaction, I may choose to have said spell channeled through a single undead creature under my control. When the spell is cast in this manner, the specified undead creature will provide all material and somatic components of the spell as necessary."

There is the question of manual dexterity required for somatic components. Not to mention, you will have to equip all of your undead minions with spell component pouches, or they will not have the material components.

You could change up the wording a bit to:

"At any time, when I cast a spell as part of my standard action, bonus action or reaction, I may choose to have said spell channeled through a single undead creature under my control. When the spell is cast in this manner, the specified undead creature will provide all somatic components of the spell as necessary. All material components required for said spell shall be expended from my spell component pouch as if I had employed them normally."

If you're worried about not being able to cast while your hands are tied, you could simply wish:

"At any time, when I cast a spell as part of my standard action, bonus action, or reaction, I may choose to forgo any somatic and/or material components required by the said spell."

This will still leave you vulnerable to being tied up AND gagged. In which case, you may wish to try:

"At any time, when I cast a spell as part of my standard action, bonus action, or reaction, I may choose to forgo any verbal, somatic and/or material components required by the said spell."

This would, in effect, give you the 3.X meta-magic feats "Silent Spell" and "Still Spell", but for every spell you cast. If you are worried that this is too broken, you can change this up to:

"At any time, when I cast a spell as part of my standard action, bonus action, or reaction, I may choose to forgo any two components whether somatic, material or verbal, required by the said spell."

[SociopathFriend]

Intent? Probably kosher, but could cause Counterspell weirdness that might bring it to nerf bat, but... well, is it stronger than Resistance to a damage type, forever, for you and all your friends? Maybe. If the undead was restricted to being within 60ft and line of sight, definitely kosher, probably Disadvantage to anyone who tries to counterspell you with a lower level slot.


At work so quick note is undead must be within 60 feet of you to command per Animate Dead.

[Anymage]

"At any time, when I cast a spell as part of my standard action, bonus action, or reaction, I may choose to forgo any verbal, somatic and/or material components required by the said spell."

This would, in effect, give you the 3.X meta-magic feats "Silent Spell" and "Still Spell", but for every spell you cast.

Permanent Subtle Spell (as per the sorcerer metamagic) is strong, and may or may not be acceptable to a dm. Throwing in the ability to ignore material components would be broken by any spell with an expensive, consumed component. At best you could count as an arcane focus yourself. That last use would be on the weak side, but should be safe under any dm who hasn't bought into the idea that all wishes should be monkey pawed.

The initial idea about being able to channel the casting of a spell through an undead under your control, requiring your action but allowing it to perform/spend the required components? I'd ask your dm, but assuming that the economy of one action = one spell is maintained I don't see too much problem. You can have your spells originate from a remote drone, and occasionally have that drone act when you're personally incapacitated. (Self-targeting spells cast through an undead are going to be a minor complication, but you can decide how to deal with that.) Sounds about on par with a wishlike effect.

Most importantly, though, there's nothing wrong with running the idea past your dm to see what he thinks. If he wants other people's ideas on how strong it'd be, you can point him at this thread. If he has an okay idea the balance point he wants, he can give you his own thoughts on how appropriate it is; if your character is magically skilled enough to animate the dead, they should be able to make at least a rough guess how much magical oomph a wish spell can have behind it. (Plus, discussing game terms can help the dm grant the intent of the wish when the character makes the wish using in universe terms.) And if the dm tells you to just make the wish and he'll work if from there, run because you're about to be monkey pawed.

[BarneyBent]

Why not wish to be able to cast all your spells without somatic or material components? The effect is essentially the same with less bookkeeping.

[JackPhoenix]

Worded as it is, it means all of your spells will require a component, and those components, whatever they are, must be carried by your undead. It has no interaction with somatic components, as somatic components aren't something that anyone or anything can possess. Or you must prepare the spells using components your undead possess, at which points, I have no idea what's going on.... your spellbook must be carried by a zombie, or something?


Snip

None of that means anything. What are those "actions" you're talking about?

[SociopathFriend]

Why not wish to be able to cast all your spells without somatic or material components? The effect is essentially the same with less bookkeeping.

Idiom (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmrLsJUtxG4) sir. I'm a Necromancer- if I can find new ways to work magic through my undead then I'll certainly push for it. I've already basically created and perfected a better Enlarge spell that only targets undead but for every 2 spell levels above 2nd grants an extra 1d4 per hit and one extra size increase.
Also if I wanted to avoid bookkeeping I'd hardly have picked a Wizard in the first place.



Worded as it is, it means all of your spells will require a component, and those components, whatever they are, must be carried by your undead. It has no interaction with somatic components, as somatic components aren't something that anyone or anything can possess. Or you must prepare the spells using components your undead possess, at which points, I have no idea what's going on.... your spellbook must be carried by a zombie, or something?


Good catch, I'll have to specify an "if components are required" somewhere in there.




The initial idea about being able to channel the casting of a spell through an undead under your control, requiring your action but allowing it to perform/spend the required components? I'd ask your dm, but assuming that the economy of one action = one spell is maintained I don't see too much problem. You can have your spells originate from a remote drone, and occasionally have that drone act when you're personally incapacitated. (Self-targeting spells cast through an undead are going to be a minor complication, but you can decide how to deal with that.) Sounds about on par with a wishlike effect.

Technically the economy would be at a loss on my end because the Undead and myself both spend an Action to cast the spell.

[Mutazoia]

Worded as it is, it means all of your spells will require a component, and those components, whatever they are, must be carried by your undead. It has no interaction with somatic components, as somatic components aren't something that anyone or anything can possess. Or you must prepare the spells using components your undead possess, at which points, I have no idea what's going on.... your spellbook must be carried by a zombie, or something?

He can always word it so that the undead minion he uses to channel the spell becomes the material component. You sacrifice an undead minion to be able to cast a spell in an emergency.




None of that means anything. What are those "actions" you're talking about?

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Unless that action is the result of a wish, in which case the opposite reaction is blown way out of proportion.

When wording a wish, you have to become a lawyer and word everything with as little wiggle room as possible.

If you're going to be THAT pedantic, you can omit the bit about the actions, and just go with "whenever I cast a spell", but depending on the DM he/she may decide that bonus actions and reactions are not covered by the wording of the wish. It's always best to break the 4th wall when stating a wish.

[Vorpalchicken]

The point that is trying to be made is that when you word a wish you do so "in character" so you don't use game terms at all.

[D+1]

My point would be that deliberate attempts to find flaws to abuse in the wording of a wish that isn't otherwise a concern is just the DM being a jerk. And if there IS a concern about the end result that a player is reaching for, then it shouldn't be up to the player to GUESS correctly as to what the DM will or won't allow. It's a 9th level f'n spell that essentially says, "Ask and ye shall receive". A 9th level effect is going to be quite, quite powerful. If the DM doesn't want to allow the intended result then that's fine. However, by the time you get to 18th level mages in your campaign the game has pretty well been hopelessly broken anyway for some time. But to mess with a wish for no better reason than that you CAN is quite poor form in my book. That's "Gotcha!" gaming and if that's your style you should be playing 1E or 0E.

[JNAProductions]

As a DM, I'd allow it. It'd come with your standard 1/3 chance of never casting Wish again, but I don't think this is broken.

One caveat I'm not sure I saw, though, is that you'd have to either be able to see your undead that you're casting through, or know EXACTLY where they are. So no sending an undead forty miles away and casting from them without Scrying first or something.

[The Library DM]

Sorry, but as a DM, in my campaign the wish has to be phrased within the understanding of the character, not the player. So I agree with saying “what is this ‘action’ you speak of?”

It’s a role playing game. Play the role, not the rules.

In my game, if a PC uses a rules term, the wish doesn’t happen. (But I rule it’s just not said, not wasted.)

“I wish that from now on, I could cast my spells without having to handle the components in my pouch, or needing a wand, staff, or talisman.”

That might work. It’s in the understanding of the character, and isn’t a deal-breaker or a game breaker. Of course, components that can’t be contained in a pouch would still need to be used normally.

[SociopathFriend]

As a DM, I'd allow it. It'd come with your standard 1/3 chance of never casting Wish again, but I don't think this is broken.

One caveat I'm not sure I saw, though, is that you'd have to either be able to see your undead that you're casting through, or know EXACTLY where they are. So no sending an undead forty miles away and casting from them without Scrying first or something.

I'm fairly sure most methods of animating undead come with ranges you're restricted to for commanding them. Regardless of how far away from you they may be- outside of said range means you can't control them and so can't actually make them do anything beyond follow your previous orders.

[Mutazoia]

Sorry, but as a DM, in my campaign the wish has to be phrased within the understanding of the character, not the player. So I agree with saying “what is this ‘action’ you speak of?”

It’s a role playing game. Play the role, not the rules.

In my game, if a PC uses a rules term, the wish doesn’t happen. (But I rule it’s just not said, not wasted.)

“I wish that from now on, I could cast my spells without having to handle the components in my pouch, or needing a wand, staff, or talisman.”

That might work. It’s in the understanding of the character, and isn’t a deal-breaker or a game-breaker. Of course, components that can’t be contained in a pouch would still need to be used normally.

So, for basically no real cost to the caster, apart from some temporary fatigue, you can basically become a God. Forgive me if I take the following paragraph a little more seriously:


You might be able to achieve something beyond the scope of the above examples. State your wish to the GM as precisely as possible. The GM has great latitude in ruling what occurs in such an instance; the greater the wish, the greater the likelihood that something goes wrong. This spell might simply fail, the effect you desire might only be partly achieved, or you might suffer some unforeseen consequence as a result of how you worded the wish. For example, wishing that a villain were dead might propel you forward in time to a period when that villain is no longer alive, effectively removing you from the game. Similarly, wishing for a legendary magic item or artifact might instantly transport you to the presence of the item's current owner.

Traditionally, in literature and in the game, being very specific with your wish has been rule numero uno. It's a wish. It can alter the fabric of reality, and you want to say "meh...that's close enough." That's fine in your games, but in mine, I will punish sloppy wish making.

If you are so pedantic that you insist on making the wish in the language of the PC, then don't mention actions. But still be specific.

[Anymage]

From your own quote on the Wish rules;

the greater the wish, the greater the likelihood that something goes wrong. This spell might simply fail, the effect you desire might only be partly achieved, or you might suffer some unforeseen consequence as a result of how you worded the wish.

Drawbacks are only meant to kick in when the wish aims too high, and outright failing or partial fulfillment are options just as much as screwing the player with legalese. Wish as a gotcha spell means that everybody with an ounce of sense avoids the spell, so it's better to not use it as a gotcha.

Although since OP did get their Wish off a Deck of Many Things, that item is also worrisome enough that I'd be wary how the DM would interpret other potentially disruptive abilities.

[SociopathFriend]

From your own quote on the Wish rules;


Drawbacks are only meant to kick in when the wish aims too high, and outright failing or partial fulfillment are options just as much as screwing the player with legalese. Wish as a gotcha spell means that everybody with an ounce of sense avoids the spell, so it's better to not use it as a gotcha.

Although since OP did get their Wish off a Deck of Many Things, that item is also worrisome enough that I'd be wary how the DM would interpret other potentially disruptive abilities.

I'm not too worried about that. Another guy Wished for (paraphrasing) the strength of a storm giant. DM responded by making his skin as strong as that of a storm giant and granting him their resistances and immunities to cold, thunder, and lightning. Not what the guy was asking for but just as clearly not trying to screw him over.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I think your wish is weaker then the archdruid class feature that the Druid gets.

So it look to me like a reasonable wish.



I'm not too worried about that. Another guy Wished for (paraphrasing) the strength of a storm giant. DM responded by making his skin as strong as that of a storm giant and granting him their resistances and immunities to cold, thunder, and lightning. Not what the guy was asking for but just as clearly not trying to screw him over.

That is way stronger then the strength.

[SociopathFriend]

I think your wish is weaker then the archdruid class feature that the Druid gets.

So it look to me like a reasonable wish.




That is way stronger then the strength.

Potentially stronger. If the DM just doesn't throw a lot of enemies that use those elements at us it rapidly loses worth.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Potentially stronger. If the DM just doesn't throw a lot of enemies that use those elements at us it rapidly loses worth.

You can blast your friend all day with cone of cold and lighting and he will be fine.

[SociopathFriend]

You can blast your friend all day with cone of cold and lighting and he will be fine.

He only IIRC had immunity to one of them and resistance to two others.
Also it helps less than you'd think. I'm a Necromancer Wizards specializing in debuffs and buffs, the Sorcerer takes nothing but fire spells, and the two Warlocks by nature of being Warlocks don't do much more than spam Eldritch Blast.

[Demonslayer666]

I don't think it's broken.

I'd allow it in my game, and allow you to swap between normal components or use your undead. But I would not treat this as subtle spell. It would still be obvious casting of a spell (depending on required components) by your minion.

[noob]

If you are unlucky you will lose the ability to cast wish and wish allows a lot of awesome shenanigans through spell duplication.

[darknite]

I wouldn't even bother with in-game wording. Tell the DM what you're looking for, mechanics wise and ask them if that's a possibility. Of course you're risking Wish Fatigue so there should be some receptiveness to it. As a DM I'd probably let you modify a rule like this once per PC with a Wish with other attempts having a high chance of failure and higher chance of Wish Fatigue.

[SociopathFriend]

If you are unlucky you will lose the ability to cast wish and wish allows a lot of awesome shenanigans through spell duplication.

I don't believe my DM counts Deck of Many Things Wishing like you actually casting the spell in terms of suffering because the Deck takes the burden for you.

[noob]

I don't believe my DM counts Deck of Many Things Wishing like you actually casting the spell in terms of suffering because the Deck takes the burden for you.

So does it means you also do not take the necrotic damage?

[SociopathFriend]

So does it means you also do not take the necrotic damage?

Not for the Deck Wish no.