DMs in the playground, would you let your players cast unsafe Wish?

[Mastikator]

I'm wondering both theoretically and also practically, who here has DMd a game with a 17th level wiz/sorc and they had wish and they wanted to cast it to do something "unsafe" or crazy? Or would you just tell the player "you can't do unsafe wish"?

[tokek]

Wish - outside of replicating 8th level and lower spells - is always a matter of negotiation between the player and the DM

Its at its best when there is trust in the DM so the player just expresses their wish like you would in a story. If the player starts producing legalese then that's a sign of a lack of trust, this is not going to be much fun so I would say so right there and then. Of course that trust only exists if as a DM you don't monkey paw this too much.

[kingcheesepants]

I would never tell a player that they can't cast unsafe wishes in general. If something was too out there I might say that some particular wish is beyond the power of even that spell but they could try to rein it in and reword it. Also depending on the wish I might heavily imply that there might be unintended consequences to such a wish and to think it over and carefully consider before speaking.

I've had great fun with unsafe wishes in actual play. One of the most memorable moments of a high level campaign I DMd came when one member of the party was eaten by a tarrasque and they all thought he was for sure a goner until the wizard used a wish to undo it. He lost his ability to cast wish ever again but he saved his comrades life and they beat the bad guys thanks to that. Then later I had that same wizard show up as the big bad in a later campaign and his inability to cast wish was one of the motivating factors to his evil schemes. So that one unsafe wish ended up being a critical component of 2 separate campaigns.

I've also seen wishes used for things like getting a legendary weapon, enchanting the party to make them immune to crits, raising their proficiency bonus, and other similar such things (though most of those were through rings of wish or genies).

[Amnestic]

It depends on what the Wish was, but yes, as standard.

[Chronic]

It's allowed in my games, whether the player is gonna enjoy it depends pretty much on my mood at the time, if I'm not feeling generous, a dice is rolled to give me a scale. 1 to 10 is bad, 11 to 20 is good.
Great power implies great ****ery, pardon my French.

[Unoriginal]

I'm wondering both theoretically and also practically, who here has DMd a game with a 17th level wiz/sorc and they had wish and they wanted to cast it to do something "unsafe" or crazy? Or would you just tell the player "you can't do unsafe wish"?

All wishes beyond what replicates a lvl 8th or lower spell and the handful of other exceptions mentioned in the PHB's text are unsafe wishes, given what the cost may end up being.

I would make clear to the player they remember that fact, and if they wish to continue it's their right.

That kind of warning doesn't apply to wishes made to other entities, though. Unless if the PCs can see the entity is planning to mess with them.

[AvatarVecna]

"Let"? I'd dare them to.


There is no greater red cape to wave in front of your DM than the words "I have a Wish too powerful for normal Wish".

[Chronos]

I'd allow it, but I'd make sure that the player understood that it not only can but probably will go wrong in some way. It might go wrong in a mild enough way that, on balance, it's still a benefit, but it'll still probably go wrong somehow.

In general, I think that there are three kinds of unrestricted Wishes: Benevolent, malevolent, and neutral. Force a creature under duress to grant a Wish for you, and they'll do whatever does the most harm to you, within the constraints of the strict literal technical wording. That's a malevolent wish. Cast it yourself, either by being a high-level wizard or (possibly) through a Ring of Wishes or the like (depending on the origin of the ring), and you get a neutral wish. This is still bound by the strict literal technical wording, but instead of actively trying to cause harm, it exerts the absolute minimum amount of power possible to satisfy the wording. Rarest and most valued of all is the benevolent wish, when some extremely powerful entity is genuinely grateful to the party for some reason. Here and only here will you go beyond the strict wording to the actual intention.

As an example, suppose that you wish for a million gold pieces. With a malevolent wish, they might materialize right above your head, and crush you to death. With a neutral wish, you might get a million specks of fine gold dust (because a speck of dust is, after all, a "piece"). With a benevolent wish, you'd get a million standard gold coins appearing in front of you, or possibly gems, letters of credit, or other more convenient stores of value worth a million GP.

[Warder]

Yes for sure, but I don't treat the Wish spell as a genie who is intent on picking the wording apart, that should be saved for actual malevolent entities. Instead, I treat the Wish spell as a needle picking at the threads of reality, and reality doesn't want to be picked at. There is no malevolence behind the consequences of an unsafe Wish, but the greater the changes you try to make, the higher the chances that you might unravel threads you never meant to.

[Brookshw]

If the player starts producing legalese then that's a sign of a lack of trust

Not disagreeing, but its also pretty inline with a healthy player paranoia. Related, I'm fine with unsafe wish, but won't allow it if the players want to go the legalese route, spell gives a wish, not a wish with 20 pages of conditions and riders.

[Amnestic]

If the player starts producing legalese then that's a sign of a lack of trust, this is not going to be much fun so I would say so right there and then. Of course that trust only exists if as a DM you don't monkey paw this too much.

I disagree with this by the way. It's not a sign of lack of trust, it's a sign that the player is being careful. The spell is written to encourage them to be specific:


You might be able to achieve something beyond the scope of the above examples. State your wish to the DM as precisely as possible. The DM 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.


Emphasis mine, of course. This is especially the case if they're receiving the Wish from another creature, like a genie. A poorly worded wish might literally remove your character from play entirely. The character (and player) should be careful, when they know that this can happen.

If they wanted to substitute real world legalese with an Intelligence (Law) check then that would be fine with me too (probably preferable for my workload honestly). They might also want to consider consulting with any experts in magical Wish wording.

[kazaryu]

I'm wondering both theoretically and also practically, who here has DMd a game with a 17th level wiz/sorc and they had wish and they wanted to cast it to do something "unsafe" or crazy? Or would you just tell the player "you can't do unsafe wish"?

i think im in line with the majority opinion here. i don't have a problem with unsafe wishes, nor do i really monkey paw them. If i let the wish work, its according to the player's intent, or at least is on a spectrum leading toward the players intent if their actual intent is too powerful. But im also not afraid to say 'that particular wish is beyond your capability' or slap some pretty big consequences on there with prior warning if those consequences exceed what is expected of any unsafe wish.

I also make it clear both at the beginning of the campaign (well...i don't explicitly call it out, but its part of the information i give about my personal houserules/clarifications) and when they reach a level when they can take the spell. Basically, i'd rather my player understand ahead of time what they're getting into, before choosing to pick up wish. and if they decide to use it, i want them to do so knowing the potential consequences (which can be both worse than in the book, and can be permanent).

[truemane]

I do this less in 5E, but what I used to say was that a wish was granted by the 'nearest' wish-granting creature or entity. So if my players had an unsafe wish they wanted to make they would take some time and effort to make sure that had attracted the attention of an entity sympathetic to them and their needs. A lawful entity might interpret words precisely, while an evil one might try to actively pervert them.

(it helped that my homebrew worlds almost always had a strong divine presence and the gods and their churches and clerics were always featured story elements)

That turned every wish into a side quest. And blunted the edge of the assumption of antagonism that Wish had before the language was clarified in 3E (Wish used to be, basically, "You can do whatever you want but your DM is going to screw you over when you try" it turned the spell into a fight).

Since 5E, I've found that I generally just interpret Wishes in general good faith and there are only negative consequences if they seem reasonable AND interesting.

[Psyren]

Pathfinder had some guidance on wish adjudication that we've used more broadly since. It's OGL so I'll just quote the passage here:


More so than almost any other ability, wish and its cousin miracle have the potential to drastically change a campaign. When your players reach the upper echelons of the game at 15th level and beyond, you should consider whether or not you want to allow your players access to wishes, as even if they can’t buy them, they’ll soon enough be able to cast the wish spell themselves.

The easiest way to control wish is to restrict it to those options listed in the spell description. None of these uses are game-breaking. However, by expanding the boundaries of wish and miracle, you open up roleplaying and story opportunities that can keep your high-level game fresh and exciting for many adventures to come.

Types of Wishes: One of the first boundaries to set is whether or not all wishes are created equal, and have similar constraints. Treating all wishes the same has the virtues of consistency and simplicity, and helps keep your game under control. Having a hierarchy of wishes gives fodder for the story in your game, letting PCs alter their local reality with their wishes, but leaving the option of seeking out higher powers to grant the wishes spoken of in legends. A suggested hierarchy is wishes from spells or magic items, followed by miracle, wishes granted by artifacts and relics, wishes granted by powerful outsiders like the efreet and djinn, and finally those wishes bestowed directly by gods and other entities beyond mortal ken.

Making Good Wishes: The best wishes are short, unambiguous, related to matters immediately at hand, and usually aimed at a simple (if powerful) task. A wish for a sundered mirror of mental prowess to be made whole or a wish to reveal the identity of the thief of the crown jewels is unlikely to go awry.

Making Bad Wishes: Wishes born of greed or vengeance have a way of turning sour. Attempts to guard against mishap with a list of conditions and qualifiers are rarely successful, most often resulting in partial fulfillment of the wish. Wishes that stretch the limits of the power granting them are always ill advised. If the wish is from a spell or magic item, failure or backlash is likely, while if the wish is from an outside source, the granter of the wish may be angered by mortal temerity and twist the wish or otherwise seek retribution against the wisher.

Twisting Wishes: Folklore is filled with tales of wishes gone awry, bringing heartbreak, misery, and perhaps eventually wisdom to the hapless wisher. The wishes most likely to be perverted away from the wisher’s intent are wishes granted by hostile outsiders, wishes from cursed objects, and bad wishes as described above. Evil outsiders in particular are loath to grant wishes that don’t serve evil ends, and take every opportunity to twist them toward harm and suffering. A wish for eternal life may leave the wisher imprisoned in a decrepit yet still undying body. A wish for a powerful magic item can be granted by stealing the item from a powerful and vengeful lord. Wishes are best turned awry by adhering closely to the letter of the wish, but violating the spirit.

Deferred Results: Rather than denying a particularly powerful wish, such as for the throne of a kingdom, the wish can be granted over an extended period. The wish subtly reshapes reality, guiding the wisher through seeming coincidence, good fortune, and the timely appearance of helpful NPCs. Success is not assured unless the PC takes advantage of her opportunities.

"Deferred Results" is the most likely way that I would handle an unsafe wish, using it to catalyze a series of plot hooks - unless it was particularly petty or greedy, in which case a twisting would be in order.

However, if the Wish is only a step above the safe uses I would be unlikely to twist it, and simply add a drawback of some kind. For example, if someone wished to undo two rolls from the previous round instead of one, I'd grant it, but possibly make them roll for Stress a second time since they essentially got two wishes in one.

[Thunderous Mojo]

I do this less in 5E, but what I used to say was that a wish was granted by the 'nearest' wish-granting creature or entity. So if my players had an unsafe wish they wanted to make they would take some time and effort to make sure that had attracted the attention of an entity sympathetic to them and their needs. A lawful entity might interpret words precisely, while an evil one might try to actively pervert them.

(it helped that my homebrew worlds almost always had a strong divine presence and the gods and their churches and clerics were always featured story elements)

That turned every wish into a side quest. And blunted the edge of the assumption of antagonism that Wish had before the language was clarified in 3E (Wish used to be, basically, "You can do whatever you want but your DM is going to screw you over when you try" it turned the spell into a fight).

This is great! Wish almost becomes a guaranteed voucher, the question is how much 'interest' will the fulfillment cost, which depends upon which 'bank' you use to redeem it.

The Outer Planes, in AD&D had Wish fulfillment rules similar to what you described. I remember casting Wish in the Demonweb pits, and hearing Lolth's voice say: "I grant your Wish".🕷


In terms of the emulate a spell of 8th level or lower clause, I, personally advocate that a DM, interpret that clause as not requiring the caster to emulate specific spells, but rather Wish can be used to create something equal to an 8th level spell effect.

Creating a fortress was considered a 'special' Wish one day, (and someone potentially lost their ability to ever cast Wish again), and then after XGE was released the same Wish would be a safe use.

This is where a DM can use their judgement, to smooth out gameplay.

Using a Wish spell to come up with a novel effect, but an effect that would be within the range of what could be achieved with an 8th level spell, can be adjudicated as emulating a yet 'undiscovered' spell.

[truemane]

This is great! Wish almost becomes a guaranteed voucher, the question is how much 'interest' will the fulfillment cost, which depends upon which 'bank' you use to redeem it.

The Outer Planes, in AD&D had Wish fulfillment rules similar to what you described. I remember casting Wish in the Demonweb pits, and hearing Lolth's voice say: "I grant your Wish".🕷
I remember at one point they went to some time and effort to find and befriend a Ki-Rin (which could cast Wish in 2nd Edition). So when they found a Ring of Wishes some time later, they were able to go back to her and she talked them through the pitfalls of what they had planned. It was like having a Wish lawyer on their side.

[Pex]

All the stuff that's listed aside from duplicating spells should be safe wishes. Also, every harmful effect that specifically say Wish can end it should also be safe wishes. They are not unreasonable. Wish should not be giving people conniption fits. Wish is never an excuse or permission for a player to try to Win D&D. Wish is never an excuse or permission for the DM to screw over the player's character. Everyone, including the game developers, need to get over their rage and worry they think Wish will ruin the game forever. It doesn't.

Ultimately for the game the DM by necessity and obvious has the final say on how a Wish works. On those occasions a player is trying to Win D&D all the DM has to do is tell him to knock it off, do something else. The player should oblige, giving the benefit of the doubt the player wasn't really trying to Win D&D but got overexcited. If the player doesn't the problem is not with Wish but the player being a donkey cavity, having removed the doubt. Conversely, once the reasonable and admittedly without apology powerful Wish is uttered, it is not the DM's job to figure out how to twist the words to make the player regret his Wish. Just grant it. Done. Move on. The DM who keeps twisting wishes is the one being a donkey cavity.

[Amnestic]

All the stuff that's listed aside from duplicating spells should be safe wishes.

I'd maybe agree if the "give your party permanent resistance to one damage type" wasn't on that list, since two weeks of downtime gives everyone permanent resistance to everything, which is...invalidating of a lot of other things, including class features. Would feel pretty bad to be a bear totem barb only to have the wizard go "oh, your gimmick? I gave it to everyone :)" like okay cool...I guess...

[Pex]

I'd maybe agree if the "give your party permanent resistance to one damage type" wasn't on that list, since two weeks of downtime gives everyone permanent resistance to everything, which is...invalidating of a lot of other things, including class features. Would feel pretty bad to be a bear totem barb only to have the wizard go "oh, your gimmick? I gave it to everyone :)" like okay cool...I guess...

Ok, modify that to resistance for 24 hours or this combat. My main point stands.

[Thunderous Mojo]

.Wish is never an excuse or permission for the DM to screw over the player's character.

It would be cool if a player did use Wish to "Win D&D".

I would probably smile, and say "My Bondage is done. Now You Are the Dungeon Master."

[Angelalex242]

Talk with your GM.

"If I cast an unsafe wish, how do you plan on ruling those?"

Note that even individual genies can have different levels of benevolence to different people. Note in the Will Smith Aladdin, he advises Aladdin on how to word wishes...and doesn't give Jafar the same advice.

[Anymage]

A player cast wish has some hefty opportunity costs. The player has to have the spell, spend a ninth level slot, and face the risk of never casting Wish again. I'd actually broaden the safe list to anything on par with an eighth or lower level slot, as well as any bad effects that explicitly require a wish to undo.

Power above that level, I try to be collaborative and work with the player to understand that Wish is powerful but not omnipotent. Giving the player the first pick of how the wish is partially or imperfectly manifested lets them feel like they're directing things, while still respecting that limits have to exist. Monkey pawing or legalese might have to happen if there's no way to arrange a meeting of the minds, but that speaks to a deeper problem than just one spell effect.

[Segev]

Like others, I generally consider the power, ability, and motivation of the wish-granting entity. Even a hostile one might be more annoyed at the inconvenience a badly-asked wish will foist upon him, and let the PCs know what he can and cannot do and even offer suggestions if he's stuck HAVING to grant one.

When it's the PCs casting the spell, though, that gets a little more interesting. What, precisely, is the spell doing? It is, in theory, "just" a 9th level spell, so whatever power is involved in casting a meteor swarm or time stop should be equally difficult to harness and equally controllable to a wish. Alternatively, a wish might be somehow less stable due to being technically outside the power level of the 9th level spell slot it takes to cast it.

If magic, as I tend to run it for D&D, is transactional, where the wizard is operating on some sort of mystical quid pro quo that has seemingly-mundane "preparations" happen to earn the rights to demand the spell effects, then perhaps the wish spell invokes specific contracts with fiends, celestials, or genies that are able to grant wishes. This does bring up, tangentially, the concerns involved in planar binding getting the wish spell early, but also highlights that perhaps the player-cast 9th level spell should be safeer than the effect extorted, cajoled, or bought from a powerful extraplanar being with a lower level spell slot.

Alternatively, perhaps the wish is a powerful nugget of reality-altering magic that the wizard has managed to procure, and will operate according to his will. In this case, it's a question of the wizard's own power and perspicacity, and I would probably let it work more or less as he intended, or at least tell him it's not going to because he knows it doesn't have the power to do it. Unforeseen consequences really will only arise as natural domino effects, or as a spell that isn't as powerful as it needs to be strains to make an end result with effects it can pull off.

I also strive to look into what the wish asked for to see if any "safe" use of wish can achieve the ends asked for. If so, it will likely just use the "safe" means, or something very close to it. "I wish to be prettier than my [half-fey] sisters!" once qualified to grant an inherent +1 bonus to Charisma. And, yes, she was objectively prettier than her sisters, which was what brought about the mechanical effect of +1 inherent bonus to Charisma.

If the wish is literally just the caster being, himself, an entity capable of granting it, I'll negotiate with him as to what his power actually is, how far it extends, and ways he could achieve his ends through a number of "lesser-powered" steps that the wish enables him to perform. He would have the ability to settle for what he can get by doing what he is willing to do, or to pay consequences to get something harder to pull off. In general, I would try to give any PC casting the spell that sort of insight into what the wish-granting entity would have to do to achieve his requested wish, as well, since he knows the powers with which he's working.

[Pex]

It would be cool if a player did use Wish to "Win D&D".

I would probably smile, and say "My Bondage is done. Now You Are the Dungeon Master."

Hahaha, good one.

Personal anecdote my newest character got three wishes at character creation. He was enslaved by a Geas to a pirate Captain. The Captain went looking for the Ring of Three Wishes, but it couldn't be found by someone looking for it. He knew where it was, and of course couldn't find it. He sent my character to go into a cave to bring back everything he sees. He found the ring and put it on. A Noble Djinn appeared and granted him three wishes with restrictions. 1) No wishing for more wishes. 2) No wish can harm another person. 3) No wish can alter the past. My first wish was to be freed of the Geas. Easily done. My second wish was to be taken far away from the pirates where they can't find me and start a new life. The Noble Djinn teleported me to where the Campaign would take place and changed my race to Changeling so I could disguise myself at will. For my third wish, since I hated slavery, I wished the Noble Djinn to be freed from the Ring. In gratitude the Noble Djinn, now able to do whatever he wants, gifted me the ring and a small portion of his power to enjoy my new life until we meet again in the Afterlife where I will join his Court. That's how I got to play a Changeling Genie Warlock.

[ProsecutorGodot]

All wishes beyond what replicates a lvl 8th or lower spell and the handful of other exceptions mentioned in the PHB's text are unsafe wishes, given what the cost may end up being.

I would make clear to the player they remember that fact, and if they wish to continue it's their right.

That kind of warning doesn't apply to wishes made to other entities, though. Unless if the PCs can see the entity is planning to mess with them.

My understanding is that those are also unsafe, any effect that doesn't duplicate a spell is unsafe.

On topic - I have allowed players to cast unsafe wishes, if I've already given them the ability to wish I don't see why I shouldn't allow them to wish for what they want. Wish, when only used as a spell duplicator, is boring and I wish more people would take a chance with it.

[Lokishade]

Unsafe wishes are the best wishes.

I would grant them in a heartbeat, given that I know more about the setting than they do and can therefore come up with unintended consequences that are perfectly organic.

I run Wish on quick thinking and improv, not antagonism. I don't even try and preserve the setting, because, at level 17, I'm pretty much ready to rig the campaign with explosives and watch the fireworks, anyway.

[KorvinStarmast]

DMs in the playground, would you let your players cast unsafe Wish?

After an "are you sure" caveat, sure you can try any wish you like.

And then we'll see how it plays out.

The only limitation I have on wish being cast in this edition is that you have to say your wish in six seconds. It's OK to take some time to write down, or think through, what you want to say. But if you can't say it in six seconds, it doesn't work.

Why is that?

Wish
9 conjuration
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Self
Components: V
Duration: Instantaneous
But my limitation is based on the 'let's get out a legal pad and write seventeen conditionals into the wish to monkey's paw proof this attempt to alter reality' that I have seen crop up in previous edition play where Monkey's Paw was a common part of a wish.

TBH, your question is, quite frankly, too vague to offer a concrete answer to.

Brevity is the soul of wit, and in my games, brevity is the soul of wish.
Remember that old saying - Be careful of what you wish for, since you are sure to get it.

I like to reward clever play, and clever word play. There are all kinds of out of the box wishes that can work out in the game. Let's see what this one does.

Some wishes will have ripple effects.
Some won't.
Depends on the wish.
Play And Find Out
becomes
Wish And Find Out, I suppose.

If you'll indulge me: would you please spell out a bit more clearly what you mean by "an unsafe wish" in a little more detail?

[PhoenixPhyre]

My thoughts (so far hypothetical, since tonight's session is the first when someone will actually have wish):

1. Intent matters more than wording. Don't try to weasel-word things to try to get your way. All you'll do is tempt me to mess with you (dangling bait in front of the lion). Tell me what you want accomplished, not how. Be clear, and if I'm not sure, I'll ask for clarification. I'll try to give you the best version of that--if it means casting an existing spell, I'll do that. If it will be unsafe, I'll warn you.

2. Wish represents entering a new system imperative into the Great Mechanism that runs the universe, on interrupt priority. But the GM has other imperatives as well, some of which are bigger. And a couple of those imperatives can pose issues here:
a. The world must end up in a consistent state afterward. If you try to make a wish that would do such a thing, it will grant it by sticking you in a virtual world where you got what you want...at the cost of being completely disconnected from this one. This case will be heavily flagged with explicit "that will cause an inconsistent-state exception. Are you sure?" warnings.
b. The GM will take the minimum-deviation path to give you what you ask for (assuming case a is not triggered). That may have consequences. Any monkey-paw effect here will because of that. If you wish for an artifact, you may end up in its presence...and in the presence of the owner. Or the owner might be brought to you, holding the artifact. Etc.

3. The listed examples are safe from any monkey-paw business, but are unsafe from backlash. Using wish to end a condition that only wish can end is an additional safe use.

[jas61292]

Yes, and also no.

No, because wish as a spell is always and will always be banned in my games. Its totally unbalanced and unfun, and does a poor job of representing ultimate arcane power.

Yes, because any wishes that do happen will therefore be from items or genies or something else similar, and I fully expect them to do ridiculous and silly things, rather that just replicate a spell, when the have the rare opportunity to do so.

[OldTrees1]

Unsafe Wishes are subject to GM approval and then the player will be informed of the risks.
Only Wishes that are approved by the PC, the GM, the player, and perhaps the rest of the playgroup too, will be cast.

[Unoriginal]

My understanding is that those are also unsafe, any effect that doesn't duplicate a spell is unsafe.

On topic - I have allowed players to cast unsafe wishes, if I've already given them the ability to wish I don't see why I shouldn't allow them to wish for what they want. Wish, when only used as a spell duplicator, is boring and I wish more people would take a chance with it.

They're unsafe in that you have to roll to see if you lose the capacity to cast Wish, but they're not unsafe in the "wish for fire resistance, get turned into a block of iron" one.

[ProsecutorGodot]

They're unsafe in that you have to roll to see if you lose the capacity to cast Wish, but they're not unsafe in the "wish for fire resistance, get turned into a block of iron" one.

I suppose I'd misunderstood what was meant by "unsafe" then, I assumed potentially losing the capacity to cast wish was a default "unsafe" option.

From the "monkey's paw" angle - I don't understand why you would approach it that way unless it's another being casting the Wish spell. We're talking about one of the premier spellcasters of the realm here, if they're weaving the magic themselves I'd at worst expect the DM's most reasonable beneficial approximation of what they asked for.

Bets are off if you're sourcing that wish from another creature though especially if they don't think very highly of you.

[Unoriginal]

I suppose I'd misunderstood what was meant by "unsafe" then, I assumed potentially losing the capacity to cast wish was a default "unsafe" option.

From the "monkey's paw" angle - I don't understand why you would approach it that way unless it's another being casting the Wish spell. We're talking about one of the premier spellcasters of the realm here, if they're weaving the magic themselves I'd at worst expect the DM's most reasonable beneficial approximation of what they asked for.


Even if you're *the* premier spellcaster of the realm, the only safe way to cast Wish is to duplicate a 8th or lower level spell effect.

The spell's description itself states how using Wish to do anything else is generaly a bad idea that has a good chance to backfire, and the "one out of three chances to lose the spell forever" thing is explicitly just the starting bullet point of the "things that can go wrong when you cast Wish" list.

As to why I would approach it that way, well, beyond the spell's text itself that says to do it, I personally think that consequence-free omnipotence isn't interesting as a PC power.

Of course, I don't subscribe to the "you wish for 60 tons of gold so you die crushed when the gold lands on you" school
either. That's simply spiteful and just as uninteresting.

[kazaryu]

Even if you're *the* premier spellcaster of the realm, the only safe way to cast Wish is to duplicate a 8th or lower level spell effect.

The spell's description itself states how using Wish to do anything else is generally a bad idea that has a good chance to backfire, and the "one out of three chances to lose the spell forever" thing is explicitly just the starting bullet point of the "things that can go wrong when you cast Wish" list.

As to why I would approach it that way, well, beyond the spell's text itself that says to do it, I personally think that consequence-free omnipotence isn't interesting as a PC power.
.
idk, i don't see Wish as being, in any way, comparable to omnipotence. i don't really treat the spell as any more powerful than other 9th level spells, except in the way that its more versatile. thats hardly omnipotence.

and the other part.... just because a DM lets a PC cast wish work as the PC intended, doesn't mean its consequence free. i just prefer consequences that aren't a monkey-paw.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Of course, I don't subscribe to the "you wish for 60 tons of gold so you die crushed when the gold lands on you" school
either. That's simply spiteful and just as uninteresting.

Which happens to be similar circumstances to the "unforseen consequences" example given in the text of the spell. If we ignore that, it simply recommends similar effects as the best alternative.

Reminder that this is simply how I've used wish in my games. I'll give an exact example to demonstrate how I handled "consequences".

A character in our Curse of Strahd game was an aspect of a god who made enemies of the dark powers and was constantly being denied ascension, reincarnating into a new vessel after each death but slowly and steadily overcoming the influence of the dark powers. The current iteration was a cleric of kelemvor, unknowingly channeling his own divine essence rather than borrowing anything so his divine magic was unaffected by the strange spellcasting alterations in barovia. Through a 0.5% chance roll he also earned a deck of many things as a starter item and gained several wishes through it.

An NPC had died, which would have put the players in great danger and made progression in the adventure more difficult. The character opted to wish that the NPC was not dead. Rather than reviving the dead NPC, they were shunted back in time to the moment they encountered the NPC at a time she could be saved. The process left them with the thoughts and feelings of another reality falling apart around them as they'd essentially burst into a parallel universe that was exactly the same except they succeeded in saving the NPC. The party was a bit confused, from their perspective the cleric simply started screaming in pain and between breaths told them how to save the NPC.

[KorvinStarmast]

Even if you're *the* premier spellcaster of the realm, the only safe way to cast Wish is to duplicate a 8th or lower level spell effect.

The spell's description itself states how using Wish to do anything else is generaly a bad idea that has a good chance to backfire, and the "one out of three chances to lose the spell forever" thing is explicitly just the starting bullet point of the "things that can go wrong when you cast Wish" list.

As to why I would approach it that way, well, beyond the spell's text itself that says to do it, I personally think that consequence-free omnipotence isn't interesting as a PC power.

Of course, I don't subscribe to the "you wish for 60 tons of gold so you die crushed when the gold lands on you" school either. That's simply spiteful and just as uninteresting. Good post.

Back in the mid 80's, I had read a number of articles about the so called "butterfly effect" and decided to apply that concept to the global side effects of wishes. The idea was more "random side effects" in contrast to some of the more vindicitive monkey paw wish twisting that was common at the time.

Wish, being a 9th level spell, was a big darned butterfly flapping its wings.

For a wish from a ring used to raise a Con score to 16, very few side effects.

To undo tragic events meant messing with time, which meant that somewhere in the world, someone's good outcome went all curvy. How and whether that came to light (kind of like how V discovered to their dismay the outcome of the familicide spell in OoTS) was an open question based on the world building that I was doing at the time. Might be years, might be days, before the side effect's symptoms began to manifest in the part of the game world where the PCs were.
In that case, I went into the 1e DMG and rolled up a random disease.

And that's how the plague got started. :smalleek:

The players had no idea that anything was wrong until commerce fell off (a few game months later) due to ships not pulling into port from a foreign land that the kingdom had traded with for centuries. They had begun to investigate when I had to move to another state, and that campaign went dormant.