Is Wish(Su) actually free?

[Zanos]

So one of the classic high level TO tricks is to shapechange into a Zodar or other creature with a wish supernatural ability to get free wishes without the XP cost. Is there any text that actually supports that these wishes don't have an XP cost? I know that SLAs have no components(including xp), but I can't find anything similar for supernatural abilities that replicate spells.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Now that you mention it...

MM1 is explicit that SLAs do not have XP components. RC agrees. Same for the PHB and DMG. None of them mention components for (Su) abilities (they might even have verbal components as normal).

Supernatural Spell is explicit: the spell in question requires no components. That includes XP, but it's arguably specific to that ability.

[Unavenger]

A relatively trivial argument is that the supernatural ability is no longer actually a spell, so it doesn't have a component any more than a martial maneuver has a psionic display.

It also depends how your particular method of supernaturalification functions - if it just replicates the effects of a spell, that's potentially different than if it allows you to cast the spell as a supernatural ability.

[icefractal]

There's another related issue - does skipping a variable component allow you to specify any possible value for that component?

Because for example, in MtG it doesn't. If you cast a spell with a variable (X) cost, in a way where you don't have to pay that cost, then X is always zero. Applying that to Wish, Su-Wishes could only do baseline things that the standard 5K XP would cover.

For D&D, that's a question that remains unspecified, AFAIK.

[Unavenger]

There's another related issue - does skipping a variable component allow you to specify any possible value for that component?

Because for example, in MtG it doesn't. If you cast a spell with a variable (X) cost, in a way where you don't have to pay that cost, then X is always zero. Applying that to Wish, Su-Wishes could only do baseline things that the standard 5K XP would cover.

For D&D, that's a question that remains unspecified, AFAIK.

I'm not sure this is relevant, because of the way the XP component is worded - it's not if you pay X, you can do thing, it's if you do thing, you must pay X. So it's not "You didn't pay X, so you can't do thing", it's "You did thing, so you have to pay... oh, wait, you don't have to pay, never mind."

[icefractal]

It's unclear, so that's a possible way to read it. That way would also mean that Fabricate can produce an unlimited amount of any material when cast as a SLA, but Fabricate is rather badly written anyway.

I mean, if I was fixing it, I'd probably go with:
* No XP for duplicating spells or removing effects that need Wish to remove.
* Minor (100? 500?) XP for transporting travelers and undoing misfortune.
* XP = 1/5th GP for creating stuff / duplicating spells with expensive components.
And it would be phrased as "if you pay # XP, then ..." rather than a component.

But that's a bit tangential. On topic, I can't find anything that specifically says Supernatural abilities don't have components, although I'd always assumed that's how it worked.

[magicalmagicman]

I'm not sure this is relevant, because of the way the XP component is worded - it's not if you pay X, you can do thing, it's if you do thing, you must pay X. So it's not "You didn't pay X, so you can't do thing", it's "You did thing, so you have to pay... oh, wait, you don't have to pay, never mind."

This is not true. If you can't pay you can't cast the spell. If you don't have 5000xp you can't cast wish.

[the_tick_rules]

would a ring of major spell storing work? it could hold ten levels of spells so even a normal wish would fit since level 9. it also says spells cast from the rings don't consume xp or material components. the potential use of that if true is absolutely massive. but it is a 200k item, the most expensive any non-epic item can be. it should be able to do work

[RSGA]

would a ring of major spell storing work? it could hold ten levels of spells so even a normal wish would fit since level 9. it also says spells cast from the rings don't consume xp or material components. the potential use of that if true is absolutely massive. but it is a 200k item, the most expensive any non-epic item can be. it should be able to do work

Once you've cast the spell into the ring, whoever puts it on can then use that spell once without XP or components. So it's at best a way of side-stepping the costs if you already are doing XP shenanigans.

[the_tick_rules]

Once you've cast the spell into the ring, whoever puts it on can then use that spell once without XP or components. So it's at best a way of side-stepping the costs if you already are doing XP shenanigans.

So the wizard or whoever casts the spell into the ring pays the 5k xp but the person using it won't?

[RSGA]

So the wizard or whoever casts the spell into the ring pays the 5k xp but the person using it won't?
Yep. It's basically a ring of reusable scrolls but for the required minimum caster level thing on the ring. You can mess around with that with metamagics, and sometimes that can make all the difference. You're likely to never make a scroll of Heightened Extended Shield for the barbarian regardless of ranks the barb may in UMD, but if you have those metamagics, Shield, and no better buff to put into one of the rings you might actually do it once when facing Mad Marv the Force Missile Mage or something.

But you're more likely to have a better buff to throw in on a daily basis or even a combat spell or two if you're a spontaneous caster with metamagics.

[the_tick_rules]

so it's not as great as it appeared at first glance, but still pretty good. paying 5k xp for pretty much any non-epic item is still pretty nice. you could also use it to get some of those permanency spells that only affect you because you are casting the spell from the ring.

[Troacctid]

Tome of Magic has a sidebar on page 139 with a nifty little chart about the difference between spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. It might be relevant.

[Psyren]

Tome of Magic has a sidebar on page 139 with a nifty little chart about the difference between spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. It might be relevant.

It doesn't mention XP or material components

[Unavenger]

This is not true. If you can't pay you can't cast the spell. If you don't have 5000xp you can't cast wish.

Right, if it's still a spell. But it's not at this point. My point is that the cost is determined by the effects you want it to have, not the effects by the cost you're willing to pay, so if you're not paying the cost, you can choose any effects, not just the low-powered effects.

[Darg]

The issue with using Shapechange is the "familiar" qualifier. Even if you read/study the subject you want to turn into you run into the issue of familiarity of concept rather than familiarity of being. Using literal definitions would imply first hand knowledge and interaction. Summons also run into the issue in that they aren't generally castable in succession for inherent bonuses and more often than not want to screw you over or have already expended their wish.

As for Wish(Su) being free? It should be. Spells have components in the spell description. SLAs and SUAs(?) only have components and costs associated in their specific description. Supernatural Abilities are not spells even if it mimics one and therefore do not have any spell cost associated with it.

[Endarire]

Do supernatural abilities have EXP/expensive components? If so or if no, that's your answer.

If ambiguous, I assume that's why you wrote this thread.

As precedent, Dweomerkeeper is the most likely way to solve this problem: Supernatural abilities have no mention of requiring EXP components. To my understanding, there are no Su abilities officially printed that explicitly require EXP/expensive components, largely because (Su) abilities were assumed initially to be GM territory. Things expected to last a fight or a campaign arc don't use EXP, or if they do, the GM can just assign whatever values he wants negating the need to track.

[Crichton]

Do supernatural abilities have EXP/expensive components? If so or if no, that's your answer.

If ambiguous, I assume that's why you wrote this thread.


I think that's the OP's general point: The Supernatural Abilities rules entry (PHB pg 180, RC pg 119), doesn't say, one way or the other. Components aren't even mentioned, in either source. So there's no rule that says they do, and there's no rule that says they don't. Generally speaking, then, it would fall back to the specific entry text of whatever Su ability is in question to set it's own specific rule for that specific Su ability.

So for Dweomerkeeper's Supernatural Spell ability, it very specifically says you're casting the spell as is (and must have it prepared/known and has a spell slot available, etc), but as a Su ability with the listed parameters. Those parameters include a clause specifying you don't need components, so for Wish cast as a Supernatural Spell by a Dweomerkeeper, it's not in question. But that ONLY applies to Dweomerkeepers and their Supernatural Spell feature, and does not in any way create a general rule or a precedent that is at all binding to any other method.


But for any other method of casting Wish as a Su ability, it's unknown, and for any method of replicating the effects of Wish as a Su ability, it's also unknown. That's what's being discussed here, and it would seem that the rules are generally silent or at least ambiguous on both points, so we're not gonna get a firm, irrefutable RAW answer, I don't think.

I think I'd rule on the side of no, they don't have components when accessed via Shapechange or similar. If an actual entity of that creature in question is listed as able to use Wish as Su, and there's no mention of them even having xp to spend, then someone Shapechanged into them would also have access to that ability. It's probably not intended, and it's not irrefutably RAW, but it seems to make sense.

[Bucky]

I think the controlling rules are:
(default) no xp cost for doing things unless something says there's an xp cost.
(Specific) "When a wish duplicates a spell that has an XP cost..." and "When a wish creates or improves a magic item..."

Not Applicable: "The minimum XP cost for casting wish" because you aren't casting it.

So I would rule that there is no XP cost for most uses of a supernatural Wish. However there is an XP cost for a supernatural wish to create an item or improve an item, and a supernatural wish inherits the XP cost of any spell it duplicates.

[Crichton]

I think the controlling rules are:
(default) no xp cost for doing things unless something says there's an xp cost.
(Specific) "When a wish duplicates a spell that has an XP cost..." and "When a wish creates or improves a magic item..."

Not Applicable: "The minimum XP cost for casting wish" because you aren't casting it.

So I would rule that there is no XP cost for most uses of a supernatural Wish. However there is an XP cost for a supernatural wish to create an item or improve an item, and a supernatural wish inherits the XP cost of any spell it duplicates.

While that sounds logical, it doesn't fit RAW, because even those additional XP Costs fall under the 'Components' category, as "XP Cost" is, explicitly, a component, (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#components) so if the cost is written under that heading in the spell's entry, it is also a component of the spell, and so either is, or isn't, required if the spell becomes 'Su-ified' somehow. It's an all or nothing deal

[Melcar]

That way would also mean that Fabricate can produce an unlimited amount of any material when cast as a SLA...

Take Ignorere Material Component, and Fabricate Indeed has no material component, which is why it’s free platinum and unlimited money! There is no question. If SLA and Su has no components, then Fabricate is free to cast! No questions asked!

[Darg]

Hmm? I want to create a platinum statue. The material cost is the original unfabricated material. I eschew that material. I no longer have platinum to make into a statue. Did I just bankrupt myself?

*cough* Back on topic. Spells have components specifically called out in their description. SLAs and SU abilities are not spells which has been specified in different sources. If one wants to read into context, the SRD's entry on special abilities has this on SLAs:


Spell-like abilities are magical and work just like spells (though they are not spells and so have no verbal, somatic, material, focus, or XP components)

Because the bolded text states that the reason SLAs don't have components is that they aren't spells; logically the implication is that all non spells don't have components unless otherwise specifically stated.

[Crichton]

Because the bolded text states that the reason SLAs don't have components is that they aren't spells; logically the implication is that all non spells don't have components unless otherwise specifically stated.



Unfortunately for us, logical implications aren't rules, and a section of rules text on one topic(SLAs) doesn't have impact on a different topic(Su abilities) unless it explicitly says it does, so this doesn't change anything with regards to the question of Su abilities and the rules on components.


It does, however, make it very clear that a Solar Angel's 1/day Wish SLA doesn't need xp.

[Buufreak]

Quoting exact text for the sake of argument:


The spell functions as it normally would and is expended normally, but the dweomerkeeper does not require any components, does not provoke attacks of opportunity, and ignores the target's spell resistance, just as if she were using a supernatural ability instead of a spell.

Emphasis mine. There seems to be a clear intent here that, from this esoteric resource, we can extrapolate that Su's do the above things: no components, no provokes, ignore spell resistance.

[Crichton]

Quoting exact text for the sake of argument:



Emphasis mine. There seems to be a clear intent here that, from this esoteric resource, we can extrapolate that Su's do the above things: no components, no provokes, ignore spell resistance.


Either that intent, or the author of Dweomerkeeper just neglected to actually check the actual rules text for Su abilities before writing that entry.

Hard to suss out intent, and would hardly be the first time WotC put out conflicting, unclear, or ambiguously worded text in splatbooks.


That said, this is a reasonable extrapolation, and it's the reason I've always ruled that way in my games, but it isn't an actual general rule for Su abilities, unfortunately, so RAW is still unclear or undefined on this point.

[Buufreak]

That said, this is a reasonable extrapolation, and it's the reason I've always ruled that way in my games, but it isn't an actual general rule for Su abilities, unfortunately, so RAW is still unclear or undefined on this point.

Absolutely not RAW, but potentially a RAI, and maybe even a "oops, we never explained this, screw it, stick it here." Like they never intended someone to play something with a racial Su, or something in those lines.

[Darg]

a section of rules text on one topic(SLAs) doesn't have impact on a different topic(Su abilities) unless it explicitly says it does,

Exactly. SU abilities aren't spells. Therefore spell statistics are not the primary source itself. The primary source is the ability description and most of those descriptions make it pretty clear they aren't casting the spells as an ability, but instead say they are similar or takes effect as if it had cast that spell.

The creature never cast the spell, the ability does. Therefore the ability has responsibility to pay the cost. The ability can't pay or transfer responsibility for debts and will eventually claim bankruptcy in order to keep pumping out supernatural powers that are clearly not taxed by the League of Overgods.

[Asmotherion]

Yes, by Raw. Though the Zodar is 3e and the DM has more than fair ground to revise it. Genies, sure, but you do need someone to wish for you.

Also, if you start with this and the DM actually accepts, it means the DM will be using the same tactics and worse against the players.

[Darg]

It's why I mentioned the "familiarity" clause in Shapechange.

[Crichton]

It's why I mentioned the "familiarity" clause in Shapechange.

Seems like a moot point to me. Even IF a DM decided that was the way they were gonna restrict Shapechange* all you'd have to do is Gate one in, have a nice little chat over some tea, in comfy chairs next to a crackling fireplace or whatever, give it a housewarming present and kindly thank it for coming and being so cordial, and then send it on its way back home. From that point on, you'd be personally familiar with whatever creature it was. By the time you can cast Shapechange, you can also potentially cast Gate, so at best all you've done is put up one minor roadblock, and not in any meaningful way actually restricted Shapechange.



*seems to me like the vast majority of DMs don't bother, because a) 'just about anything you're familiar with' is veeeeery inclusive and not very restrictively defined language and b) there are waaaaay too many ways around that particular restriction, including the one I outlined

[Buufreak]

Unless they also limit summoning based on familiarity with the subject as well...

[ExLibrisMortis]

Unless they also limit summoning based on familiarity with the subject as well...
Gate only requires that you know the name of the kind of creature. You basically just need to have heard about zodar in a fairy tale, or something.

(Summon monster doesn't even require that, it just lets you pick from the list.)

[Darg]

Familiarity implies intimate knowledge about the form you want to change to. Gate also doesn't beat DM discretion as it doesnt guarantee ability availability. If a player is given the free time to use gate to become familiar with the creature then it's fine. Wish is such a powerful ability that the CR of the creatures that can use it per day should be at a minimum of 26 regardless. The DM has the ultimate power in discretion on the power of a wish spell. Zodar on one hand has a single wish every year. I'm of the opinion that use limits are based on the player and type of form rather than being a new instance every time they change into that form.

[Crichton]

Familiarity implies intimate knowledge about the form you want to change to.

A) no it doesn't. We use the word 'familiar with' in all sorts of contexts, and one of the more frequent usages is to indicate that we have a passing knowledge of something, but specifically NOT intimate detailed knowledge.
B) the rest of the wording in the Shapechange entry doesn't carry any hint of such a restriction. Aside from the mechanical limitations (HD, and the removal of limits on size and Type), there are no listed limits. This 'familiar' restriction that you're trying to portray is something that the wording of the rules allows, but does not enforce. It's entirely, 100% up to the DM to decide they want to restrict Shapechange, and to use that clause to do it.



Gate also doesn't beat DM discretion as it doesnt guarantee ability availability.

"Ability availability?" What part of that would be needed for someone to use Gate as I indicated, to bypass your contrived 'you must be personally, first-hand familiar with a creature to Shapechange into it' limitations? The Gated creature doesn't need 'ability availability' to sit and have a nice friendly chat with you.



Wish is such a powerful ability that the CR of the creatures that can use it per day should be at a minimum of 26 regardless.

Ooh, that big 'S' word! You and I don't get to make that call, friend. And WotC, it would seem, emphatically disagrees with you:

Solar Angel (SLA wish 1/day - CR 23)
Efreeti (SLA wish 3/day - CR 8)
Pazuzu (SLA Wish 1/day - CR 22)
Noble Djinn (Sla Wish 3/day - CR 8)

Odd, though, that the 1/day wish creatures have higher CR than the 3/day wish creatures. They must have placed a TON of value on that 'can't use wish on yourself clause for Efreetis and Noble Djinni




The DM has the ultimate power in discretion on the power of a wish spell.

ONLY if you wish for effects greater than what is listed.


Zodar on one hand has a single wish every year. I'm of the opinion that use limits are based on the player and type of form rather than being a new instance every time they change into that form.
As am I, which is why it's so very much easier to exploit free wishes from other sources. Nontheless, as you say, that's just our opinion. It's not the rules.

[Darg]

A) no it doesn't. We use the word 'familiar with' in all sorts of contexts, and one of the more frequent usages is to indicate that we have a passing knowledge of something, but specifically NOT intimate detailed knowledge.

Common use is not necessarily a common definition. Hence the urban dictionary exists. When that use is used it refers to a broad concept and not the actual subject proclaimed to be familiar with. If you study a certain creature in a library learning habits, physiologically accurate representation, and what their capabilities are does that actually mean you are familiar enough with the form to change into it? Or does it mean you are familiar with it's concept as printed in a library? Other wise you end up with "Yeah, I'm familiar with dragons. I hear about them all the time." As long as you've heard the name you can change into it. Technically you could simply use "big red scaly lizard thing."


B) the rest of the wording in the Shapechange entry doesn't carry any hint of such a restriction. Aside from the mechanical limitations (HD, and the removal of limits on size and Type), there are no listed limits. This 'familiar' restriction that you're trying to portray is something that the wording of the rules allows, but does not enforce. It's entirely, 100% up to the DM to decide they want to restrict Shapechange, and to use that clause to do it.

Meta knowledge is definitely something allowed by the use of the word you. Or is the reference to the character...


"Ability availability?" What part of that would be needed for someone to use Gate as I indicated, to bypass your contrived 'you must be personally, first-hand familiar with a creature to Shapechange into it' limitations? The Gated creature doesn't need 'ability availability' to sit and have a nice friendly chat with you.

I was talking about forcing the gated creature to use their wish for you. It's easily storied away as having been used no matter how many creatures you call. Chatting and being around the creature is a good way to become familiar with the form you want to inhabit.


Ooh, that big 'S' word! You and I don't get to make that call, friend. And WotC, it would seem, emphatically disagrees with you:

Solar Angel (SLA wish 1/day - CR 23)
Efreeti (SLA wish 3/day - CR 8)
Pazuzu (SLA Wish 1/day - CR 22)
Noble Djinn (Sla Wish 3/day - CR 8)

Odd, though, that the 1/day wish creatures have higher CR than the 3/day wish creatures. They must have placed a TON of value on that 'can't use wish on yourself clause for Efreetis and Noble Djinni

Oh, that sarcasm burns. Ooow. Why is WotC getting involved in this? Their materials are already the baseline for any kind of discussion. That means I am the one disagreeing with their choice.


ONLY if you wish for effects greater than what is listed.

DM can do as they wish. Pun intended.



As am I, which is why it's so very much easier to exploit free wishes from other sources. Nontheless, as you say, that's just our opinion. It's not the rules.

Logical limitations tend to make games more fun instead of confining. If we wanted to play with words some more, you could change into the BBeG as long as they aren't a unique creature and expend all of their uses of abilities they possess. Do they mean unique as in you can't take the form of a specific entity or unique as in it's the only one of it's kind in all existance? No one really knows. However, you can use it as a disguise and disguises are used to impersonate....

[Zanos]

DM can do as they wish. Pun intended.
This is always the case. Your DM can have your fireball spell explode in your face for no reason. Pointing it out is thoroughly unhelpful.

I'd prefer to focus on Rules As Written as it relates to supernatural abilities. The strongest argument I see so far is that XP is a component, which is a quality inherent to spells. Therefore, a supernatural ability can't have an XP Spell Component because it's a Spell component. That isn't as solid as I'd like but I suppose it's workable.

[Darg]

It's really the only thing there is on supernatural abilities sadly. Otherwise you have 20 some years of DMs playing creatures wrong and some wouldn't even be able to use their ability as is without the DM intervening on each individual case to add the components necessary for abilities into the NPCs' inventories

[Doctor Despair]

It's really the only thing there is on supernatural abilities sadly. Otherwise you have 20 some years of DMs playing creatures wrong and some wouldn't even be able to use their ability as is without the DM intervening on each individual case to add the components necessary for abilities into the NPCs' inventories

To be fair, the rules not working as intended as they are written is not a very rare feature in 3.5

[Crichton]

Common use is not necessarily a common definition. Hence the urban dictionary exists. When that use is used it refers to a broad concept and not the actual subject proclaimed to be familiar with.

And yet, without any additional clarifying or restricting language, any commonly used definition of 'familiar with' has equal claim on the RAW in this case. Your claim of 'must have intimate firsthand detailed knowledge is no more supported as the correct interpretation than any of your sarcastic example cases. They're all equally valid, based on the actual text that is there.




If you study a certain creature in a library learning habits, physiologically accurate representation, and what their capabilities are does that actually mean you are familiar enough with the form to change into it?
Yes, that would be allowed, based on the text

you end up with "Yeah, I'm familiar with dragons. I hear about them all the time."
That's just as valid an interpretation too

As long as you've heard the name you can change into it.
Yep, that one too

Technically you could simply use "big red scaly lizard thing."
You absolutely could, and it would be just as text-legal as any of the other cases, or the super restrictive one you so dogmatically defend.




The point is, the term isn't rigorously defined, so there is no one and only RAW legal way to do it. It's entirely required that each DM at each table make their own judgment call, for the way it's going to work in their specific campaign, and their ruling on the matter has zero weight at someone else's table




I was talking about forcing the gated creature to use their wish for you.
which wasn't a thing that was mentioned by anyone...





Why is WotC getting involved in this? Their materials are already the baseline for any kind of discussion. That means I am the one disagreeing with their choice.
Except that you used the word 'should.' That's not just you disagreeing, that's you using prescriptive language to impose your opinion on the matter onto others, telling them the way they 'should' do it. If all you'd said is 'I think 1/day wish is too powerful' etc, that'd be a different matter. We don't have the right, nor the authority, to dictate to others how they 'should' play this game, nor is that what this discussion thread is about. It's about what the rules actually say on a given topic, not how we feel about them or how we wish they were different.




DM can do as they wish. Pun intended.
As Zanos said: thoroughly unhelpful. We're discussing RAW, not what DMs can or can't do when they decide to exercise their right to overrule the rules text. The Wish spell's text is very clear about which usages are 'safe' and will always work as intended, and which are 'greater' and thus subject to being twisted or corrupted.











The strongest argument I see so far is that XP is a component, which is a quality inherent to spells. Therefore, a supernatural ability can't have an XP Spell Component because it's a Spell component.
I'm not entirely convinced that this means Su abilities can't ever have those components. If a Su ability is explicitly allowing you to 'cast a spell, but as a Su ability' then it's going to inherit EVERYTHING from that spell's description entry, in full 'specific beats general' rules style, just the same way that each spell's entry is a specific bit of rules text that can sometimes override the general way spellcasting works (for custom duration entries, or custom target/area entries, etc.) If the general definition entry on Su abilities had the same overarching clauses that the SLA entry has, then it would be more clear the Su abilities can't ever have component costs, but the Su entry is silent on the matter, so there's no prohibition on Su abilities having extra costs/requirements added to them by the specific ability's entry.

That's not to say that spells cast as Su abilities necessarily DO have xp costs, it's just to say that it's not prevented by the fact that components are part of a Spell entry, and Su abilities aren't spells.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I'm not entirely convinced that this means Su abilities can't ever have those components. If a Su ability is explicitly allowing you to 'cast a spell, but as a Su ability' then it's going to inherit EVERYTHING from that spell's description entry [...]
I agree with this. Which prompted me to look at the exact wording of the Zodar ability, which is as follows:

Once per year, a zodar can alter reality as if it had just cast a wish spell as a sorcerer of the same level as its Hit Dice.
Setting aside the obvious problem for the moment (wish as a 16th-level sorcerer?), Zodar don't actually cast wish, so they should not inherit the XP cost.

[Crichton]

I agree with this. Which prompted me to look at the exact wording of the Zodar ability, which is as follows:

Setting aside the obvious problem for the moment (wish as a 16th-level sorcerer?), Zodar don't actually cast wish, so they should not inherit the XP cost.



Indeed, which then brings up the question, with relation to the original post: Are there other creatures that have Wish as a Su ability? Solars, Pazuzu, and Efreeti/Noble Djinn all have it as an SLA, which is much more clearly defined.

[Darg]

And yet, without any additional clarifying or restricting language, any commonly used definition of 'familiar with' has equal claim on the RAW in this case. Your claim of 'must have intimate firsthand detailed knowledge is no more supported as the correct interpretation than any of your sarcastic example cases. They're all equally valid, based on the actual text that is there.

Shapechange stealing ability uses has now become a new way to game the system, maybe.



Except that you used the word 'should.' That's not just you disagreeing, that's you using prescriptive language to impose your opinion on the matter onto others, telling them the way they 'should' do it. If all you'd said is 'I think 1/day wish is too powerful' etc, that'd be a different matter. We don't have the right, nor the authority, to dictate to others how they 'should' play this game, nor is that what this discussion thread is about. It's about what the rules actually say on a given topic, not how we feel about them or how we wish they were different.

I don't know where you got the implication that my use of the word should meant that all should bow before my imposing will. With your flexibility on definitions and contexts one wouldn't have thought you would take offense to an exclusion of the qualifier that it was an opinion. Should every sentence I type be prefaced with imo just so I don't get branded as a tyrannical ruler of these boards?


As Zanos said: thoroughly unhelpful. We're discussing RAW, not what DMs can or can't do when they decide to exercise their right to overrule the rules text. The Wish spell's text is very clear about which usages are 'safe' and will always work as intended, and which are 'greater' and thus subject to being twisted or corrupted.

Statements are also made for context, not just for being articles of discussion. There is no reason to be so hung up on something that isn't actually being discussed.



By your words you are saying that Su abilities by RAW require components and don't require components by DM Fiat. Then what are you actually discussing at this point?