How do you handle Wish?

[Schwann145]

Just a thought experiment more than anything, but as a DM, if one of your players with access to Wish wanted to use it for things that manipulate the mechanics of the game rather than the narrative, how would you handle this?

As an example, say a Sorcerer wanted to Wish for an additional 9th level spell slot. Sure, the character has no concept of "spell slots" but they do have a concept of limitations in their ability to cast and a desire to magically overcome them.
Or, as another example, perhaps a Barbarian got their hands on a Wish and wanted to gain an extra attack, above and beyond the two they gain by level 5, so they would have three attacks as part of an attack action.
Things like this that clearly break the intended balance of a class, but aren't unreasonable things for a character to desire.

[Tarmor]

I don't have a problem with a player trying something like that. The text of wish already refers to mechanical effects: for example "You undo a single recent event by forcing a reroll of any roll made within the last round (including your last turn)."
The fun part is how they actually manage to express that desire with an in-game statement. In any case, you still get to decide how to fulfill their wish, and how completely.
The barbarian expresses a wish to be 'faster in combat and able to land more blows than he is normally capable of'... I give him a haste effect!

[HoboKnight]

My take on Wish is highly personal (albeit extrapolated from a number of yt DM gurus). The mechanical part (replicating spells up to lvl 8, fabricating materials) is not a problem. The big wishes are. Because "true" Wish means engaging with a local medium that is taking care of magic (in case of Faerun the Weave). And the greater the wish, the more possibly disastrous the results. You want pantheon dead? Yeah, done, make me a new character. Why? Because your character is now 4 million years in the future, when the last god of this pantheon just died.

I would not say Wish and Weave are malevolent, just... doing their best.

And for this case of adittional attacks... Well, there is a number of monsters with a larger number of attacks then these players... Wish might turn them into such a monster. If PC keeps their faculty in its new form... 50/50 chance?

[GeneralVryth]

Wish is something houseruled for me. But before getting in to that, I have no problem with Wish granting such mechanical bonuses, but it should be expressible in a way that makes sense in the game world. Also, I have an extreme dislike of DMs malevolently interpreting wishes (I may make an exception for wishes negotiated with other beings, but even then I am iffy), so that is not a thing for casting it (also I know there is a word for this I just can't remember it). The caster will know more or less the exact effects they are getting.

As for my houseruled Wish:

First chuck the random chance non-sense something this important shouldn't be left up to chance. Using Wish let's a caster briefly play with the fundamentals of reality around them, risking damage to their soul in the process of wielding such power. Before a caster casts wish the DM should inform them of what level soul burn they will incur.
None: No change.
Light Soul Burn: The caster can still cast Wish, but if they incur soul burn again their soul is destroyed, they're dead, and they can't come back.
Heavy Soul Burn: If the caster casts Wish again regardless of effect their soul is destroyed, they're dead, and they can't come back.
Soul Destruction: The caster's soul is destroyed, they are dead, and they can't come back.

Duplicating a spell of 8th level or lower doesn't risk soul burn.
Using one of the bullet point actions, risks light soul burn depending on the purity of their actions (basically a DM call if they are trying abuse something or it's a genuine need).
Anything else ranges from risking heavy soul burn to soul destruction depending on the scope of the desire and the DMs judgement.

Finally, as it's name suggests soul burn effects one's soul, the method of casting Wish (whether though item or simulacrum) doesn't matter. Dying, and coming back doesn't matter. The only way to cure the damage is through Wish (which is really just going to result in shifting it around) or divine intervention.

As far as game logic is concerned, I like the idea that souls are a kind of fundamental power source (hence why they get traded in, in the outer planes), Wish is basically drawing on that power. Which is why some entities can trade in Wish deals (they have access to souls other than their own to burn/destroy), and makes for a nice kind of connection to some of the darker super ritual tropes that are common in fantasy genres.

[Mastikator]

I'd start by asking "what are you trying to accomplish?", "don't you think that would break the game?", and "would you allow a player to break your game?".

Luckly as a DM I have RAW to fall back on, the Wish spell explicitly says that the spell may fail at the DM's discretion. So if I'm not satisfied with the answer from the player I can just say "no". If I am satisfied then if the player asked for more attacks I could just let them make 10 attack on that same round. Or let them have one extra attack for 10 minutes.

There is also the issue of trying to lawyer the wish by ever more precise wording, which is that it has the opposite effect of what you want. What you want is a powerful buff with no downsides, but what you're doing is limiting my ability to prevent it from breaking the game. If your wish breaks the game and I can't repair it within the wording then I have to say no. You can grant up to 10 creatures resistance to one damage type forever, that is a lot. Don't try to go beyond that, you're just putting yourself at odds with the DM.

I think a player needs to be mindful of the fact that the DM is on the player's side. You're not playing chess against the DM, the DM designs chess puzzles for you to defeat. When a player has a powerful potentially game altering ability like Wish (or Divine Intervention), you need to start being on the DM's side too.

[Keltest]

I make the player word out their wish and then interpret it as literally as possible. But since the players are my friends, if there's anything egregious in their wording that would result in them not at all getting what they wanted, I generally tell them out loud "this is how I would interpret that wish if you submitted it as the final version." I don't necessarily want to give them too hard a time over it, its just enough power that I want them to at least try and get a little clever with it.

[Unoriginal]

And for this case of adittional attacks... Well, there is a number of monsters with a larger number of attacks then these players... Wish might turn them into such a monster. If PC keeps their faculty in its new form... 50/50 chance?

Could replace enough of their levels with Fighter levels for them to have 3 attacks, too.

[stoutstien]

Just a thought experiment more than anything, but as a DM, if one of your players with access to Wish wanted to use it for things that manipulate the mechanics of the game rather than the narrative, how would you handle this?

As an example, say a Sorcerer wanted to Wish for an additional 9th level spell slot. Sure, the character has no concept of "spell slots" but they do have a concept of limitations in their ability to cast and a desire to magically overcome them.
Or, as another example, perhaps a Barbarian got their hands on a Wish and wanted to gain an extra attack, above and beyond the two they gain by level 5, so they would have three attacks as part of an attack action.
Things like this that clearly break the intended balance of a class, but aren't unreasonable things for a character to desire.

Wish is one of those things that just takes a lot of experience and system mastery to handle well.

Like a barbarian wishing for faster or more precise weapon attacks? Sure whatever. Damage is the easiest thing to account for and barbs are in no position to risk taking it too far. (I'd probably do something like letting them turn one miss a round into a hit instead of just adding attacks. That is both more logical as a narrative wish request and doesn't just shift stuff up for no reason.)

Getting extra 9th lv slots on the other hand is risky as it allows power banking to occur with less effort. Safer to give a free cast of a list of spells or automatic max up casting of a certain spell. A meteor swarm is big but nothing compared to binding summons over and over.

[JackPhoenix]

Wish takes the path of least resistance, unless it's granted by a being that can manipulate the results. An efreeti or a devil will likely screw you over while keeping to the letter of the wish, a friendly genie will more likely keep to the spirit of the wish, even if the wording allows for loopholes.

In the case of the wishes from the OP, because there's a lack of specific in-character wording, the likely path of least resistance is the sorcerer getting the expended level 9 slot back (after casting Wish, he had no level 9 slot left, therefore, he got an additional slot), and the barbarian would be affected by Haste (he can now take another attack in addition to the two he already gets).

[NichG]

Any sort of repeatable, on-demand source of Wish (spell slots, creature abilities, etc) is just restricted to the explicit list - anything asked for beyond there, I'll try to find the nearest combination of spells adding up to 8th level or lower that achieve the effect, or go as far as the effect of an 8th level spell would reasonably permit. A caster who is familiar with the spell will be able to get some idea of how this will hash out. It's not generally in the form of twisting phrasing, and wish-lawyering is not an effective way to get more control of the effect - basically, the energy available just doesn't go the distance, or a magical pattern achieving the thing asked for just can't be found and so nothing happens. My interpretation of it is that spell slot Wish is basically like a magical computer, searching over all of the different combinations of potential spell patterns that fit within a certain budget of energy to try to invent a spell on the fly to achieve the stated desire. If the search fails, it doesn't just do some random thing - it's not hostile to the caster or seeking to punish them. It could sometimes do something where the caster would have wanted it to just fail instead, but that's more often a consequence of the caster not understanding what they want. There's no 'you didn't wish not to be buried in your money that you wished for' for a slot-based Wish.

Of course if you're trying to force someone else to cast a slot-based Wish on your behalf, yeah, that'll get genie'd.

Beyond that, there are higher modes of Wishing than that which each have their own unique caveats. Generally this sort of Wish only comes about through mucking around with whatever source of authority underlies the mechanics of divinity in the setting, or via bringing in things from outside the multiverse and allowing them to 'dream the world differently'. It's often ambiguous whether or not a Wish of this nature actually changed the setting, or just pulled the wisher and everyone around them into the dream some eldritch being is having about the setting leaving the actual original alone. As such, this sort of Wish goes beyond just 'grant an extra spell slot' or 'grant an extra attack' - a character could use a 'true' Wish of various forms to even ask for something like 'the game mechanics for this campaign become Shadowrun instead of D&D', 'I want devil fruit powers from One Piece to be a thing', or just plain 'the party becomes the overdeity of the setting'. Any of the forms of higher wishing almost always involve a player-DM discussion - it's not the character putting a desire in words, but something vastly above the limits of words iterating over possibilities with the character's mind to find exactly what they want.

The most frequent caveat is that whatever empowers the Wish may also use the opportunity to make a bunch of unrelated changes that it wants to make. For example, a simple form of this would be an artifact whose function is: 'gives the user one true Wish, but also subsequently gives a Wish of similar power to whatever the user asks for to an adversarial force'. If you want a sandwich, then your greatest enemy might be able to get a hotdog, but not wish you dead. If you wish for the multiverse to be under your eternal rule though, be prepared for someone else to wish for a chance to take your throne (or create their own planes outside of your rule, or other such things). I strongly prefer the caveat to be up front rather than a surprise, and the interesting gameplay is to figure out when the situation is bad enough to warrant your enemy getting a wish, or to decide to burn the wish on something of a scale that would help you, but would be a drop in the bucket for the sorts of enemies you're growing to be able to face.

[Sigreid]

Wish doesn't come up much in the games I've been in, or ran; but generally my group has an agreement not to intentionally bust the game. As far as the additional 9th level spell slot? I'm not that fussed about that one. That's something that's listed under epic boon options and by the time you can cast wish on your own, you're almost there anyway.

[JonBeowulf]

I don't have the spell in my games. I've used Wish as a reward at the end of a save-the-world campaign. The party got the standard 3 wishes and since it wasn't the spell, I was able to put some guardrails on it to prevent foolishness. They spent almost an hour discussing and debating before presenting 3 thought-out and balanced wishes that they felt were adequate rewards for their accomplishments.

(Campaign was over but I used their party as legendary NPCs in the world until we no longer played in it.)

[sithlordnergal]

Just a thought experiment more than anything, but as a DM, if one of your players with access to Wish wanted to use it for things that manipulate the mechanics of the game rather than the narrative, how would you handle this?

As an example, say a Sorcerer wanted to Wish for an additional 9th level spell slot. Sure, the character has no concept of "spell slots" but they do have a concept of limitations in their ability to cast and a desire to magically overcome them.
Or, as another example, perhaps a Barbarian got their hands on a Wish and wanted to gain an extra attack, above and beyond the two they gain by level 5, so they would have three attacks as part of an attack action.
Things like this that clearly break the intended balance of a class, but aren't unreasonable things for a character to desire.

I mean, wishing for an additional 9th level slot or a single Extra Attack doesn't actually break much. Heck, there's already a special Boon you can give to Casters that grant a permanent 9th level slot in the DMG, so its really not as bad as you might think. And a 3rd attack on a Barbarian is really not as bad as it might sound. Mostly because there are so many more things such a Barbarian can be doing that are worse.

As for how I run it, sometimes you gotta go for the mechanical over the narrative. Spell slots and Extra Attack are how we translate the game mechanics to what happens in the narrative. They're the abstraction that the DM and Players use to describe something in the game world. The actual Character might end up describing it in whatever terms they use for magic in that world, but the player might not know what terms those are. Therefore, sometimes you gotta describe things in a mechanical sense.


As for how I run Wish, I don't really limit Wish. It can do the 1-8th level spells and the bullet points with no problem. However, if you ask for something beyond that, it becomes a Monkey's Paw situation. It'll grant any Wish you make that goes outside of those bullet points, but it will do so in a malicious manner. The ONLY way to avoid that Monkey's Paw is to be as specific and rules lawyery as possible to avoid any mishaps.

For example, my players once wished for a Soul Coin. They didn't realize this was a magical item, and they got themselves a Soul Coin. That Soul Coin belonged to Zariel, and Zariel knew EXACTLY who stole the coin from her. Another example, a player wished for the benefits of a Long Rest. I gave it to them. They intended for the entire party to benefit from this Long Rest, but never specified that it should effect the entire party. So they were the only one who got a Long Rest.




I don't have the spell in my games. I've used Wish as a reward at the end of a save-the-world campaign. The party got the standard 3 wishes and since it wasn't the spell, I was able to put some guardrails on it to prevent foolishness. They spent almost an hour discussing and debating before presenting 3 thought-out and balanced wishes that they felt were adequate rewards for their accomplishments.

(Campaign was over but I used their party as legendary NPCs in the world until we no longer played in it.)

You know, I had a DM give Wish out as a reward for ending the campaign. I was kind of let down by it. Why bother handing out Wish at the end of a campaign when you'll never get to actually play with whatever you gain from it. Seemed like a waste of time to me. Like cool, we have a Wish spell, we can do something awesome...with characters we'll never bother using again. Its like being rewarding with a bunch of gold or a big magic item. Neat, never gonna use it.

[Schwann145]

For folks not bothered by something like "adding a spell slot," have you considered that the caster could repeat that Wish daily? How would that change your opinion, if at all?

[Darth Credence]

I believe that I play Wish pretty straight. Use it for any 8th level spell. Use it for anything on the list, or anything of the same power level, and it happens but you get the wish stress and need to roll to retain the ability to wish. I do not consider the source of the wish when looking at wish stress - you lose the ability to wish, you lose it from every possible source.

For things that I would consider similar power to the existing list, I have stuff like allowing the creation of a magic item worth less than 25k gp, but I also have a list of what I think magic items are worth to compare it to, and I've allowed contingency to be cast with a higher level spell than normal.

For things beyond the scope of the list, the next thing I consider are blessings and boons. If they are listed as available under "Other Rewards" in the DMG, then I allow it to be wished for. Specifically, they are wishing for the thing listed there, and follow the rules as stated. If I can reasonably take the request from the player and turn it into such a reward, then it counts, so if someone wants a "Boon of the Frozen Wastes" where they are immune to cold damage and can cast frost fingers at will, I'm OK with that.

Then for stuff completely beyond that - stuff like "I wish the Cliffs of Despair would fall into the ocean and leave behind the beaches of Tranquility", well, those are only going to work if that is absolutely something I want to have happen to the world anyway. Suppose a player insists on something like that. In that case, I will probably go with a single rock falling from the cliffs, and the locals deciding to rebrand and stop calling the cliffs that to focus on the new land they opened up by hauling a bunch of sand from a nearby quarry to make Tranquility Beach.


For folks not bothered by something like "adding a spell slot," have you considered that the caster could repeat that Wish daily? How would that change your opinion, if at all?

The way I do it, by tying it to a given boon, the rules for the boons prevent anyone from acquiring the same boon twice. You can wish for the boon of high magic and get it, but having that boon 10 times doesn't mean you get any more spell slots.

And even if they started to simply go through the list of boons, that would be a lot of time spent with a strength of 3, and while they have a 66% chance of getting to do it a second time, only 44% can do it 3 times, and less than 1% will still be able to cast it after 10 attempts. And you can bet your butt that when it was clear what was going on, there would be assassins waiting to take advantage of their infirmity.

[sithlordnergal]

For folks not bothered by something like "adding a spell slot," have you considered that the caster could repeat that Wish daily? How would that change your opinion, if at all?

Credence actually put it well. If there is a method already available in the rules for someone to get something, such as via a Boon, I'll use it. Because I have Wish take a path of least resistance on top of being a Monkey's Paw. Plus I take the sentence "the greater the wish, the greater the likelihood that something goes wrong" and run with it. Wishing for one extra 9th level spell slot? If you word it properly, you'll get the Boon. But if you don't word it carefully, you might just regain all 9th level spell slots you've used for the day while still suffering from the Stress of casting Wish.

Wish for a third 9th level slot? Well, you now have a greater chance of something going wrong. You might permanently lose a number of spell slots that add up to a 9th level spell slot, like permanently losing a 1st and 8th level slot in exchange for a 9th level slot. But it all boils down to how well you can rules lawyer in a sentence or three.

And never forget the chance to never cast Wish again.

[lall]

More or less agree with Mastikator. I’d try to understand what they want (letting them know not to worry about any wording) and see if we can agree on something.

[KorvinStarmast]

I handle it as written, and then I add or subtract what I need to in order for it to fit into the world I've built.

As a PC, I use it to casts spells of level 8 or less.

The last wish a party made where I was DM was to benefit the whole party. they spent a lot of time discussing it. The wish was a gift from a genie whom they had freed.

They ended up wishing for cold resistance for the whole party. This amused me, since they had no idea that I was about to send them into the giants modules from TftYP: Hill, Frost, Fire. (I had modded the intro into our campaign world: the hill giants had flattened the town near where I had placed Forge of Fury, and had killed mostly every one and taken a few hostages. The PCs had some friends there, and they got mad and went after them).

Needless to say, that wish did the party many goods during the Frost Giant adventure.

They are currently up in the alpine regions of the world, about to face a Crystal Dragon (adult) and its three kids. Won't be as much help then, but it has helped them as they fall into ice cold water or fight yetis/frost wolves, etc.

[sithlordnergal]

More or less agree with Mastikator. I’d try to understand what they want (letting them know not to worry about any wording) and see if we can agree on something.

Huh, I'm surprised more people aren't worried about the wording...I find that as part of the spell's fun. How do you word your wish in such a way that it gets you what you want without totally being screwed over by negative effects. And as a DM, what are the loopholes the player left open that allow me to technically fulfill the precise wording of the wish.

I know it might seem like DM versus player, but I love the Monkey's Paw idea.

[RSP]

Work with the DM, not against them.

I like the aspect of Wish in being any other spell, but outside of chain simulacrums and whatnot, there’s other good 9th levels to compete with it.

I like the idea (DM being okay with it) of using it for backlash-inducing wishes, like the ones in the spell description. There’s a whole separate set of fun to roll the % to see just how many damage types you’ll get to resist.

I’m also a fan of using Wish to add off list spells to my caster’s spells known.

But again, I’d suggest not trying to surprise your DM with this and run your thoughts by them before you get there.

[Schwann145]

Huh, I'm surprised more people aren't worried about the wording...I find that as part of the spell's fun. How do you word your wish in such a way that it gets you what you want without totally being screwed over by negative effects. And as a DM, what are the loopholes the player left open that allow me to technically fulfill the precise wording of the wish.

I know it might seem like DM versus player, but I love the Monkey's Paw idea.

What in the case of the character being smarter than the player? The Wizard with 20 int is almost assuredly better at getting the wording right than the player piloting them.

[Mastikator]

Huh, I'm surprised more people aren't worried about the wording...I find that as part of the spell's fun. How do you word your wish in such a way that it gets you what you want without totally being screwed over by negative effects. And as a DM, what are the loopholes the player left open that allow me to technically fulfill the precise wording of the wish.

I know it might seem like DM versus player, but I love the Monkey's Paw idea.

IMO it's precisely the DM vs player issue that I want to avoid. IF a player actually wants that dynamic then I'll abide it, and we'll have a conversation about it.

On the other hand, I too like the monkey paw idea, but then I'd rather have an NPC be responsible for the corruption. Which is why I prefer to have an efreeti give a wish than a genie.
Likewise the wish can fail as per RAW, and it's entirely up to the DM. So it's very difficult for a player to corrupt the game.

[Ignimortis]

Just a thought experiment more than anything, but as a DM, if one of your players with access to Wish wanted to use it for things that manipulate the mechanics of the game rather than the narrative, how would you handle this?

As an example, say a Sorcerer wanted to Wish for an additional 9th level spell slot. Sure, the character has no concept of "spell slots" but they do have a concept of limitations in their ability to cast and a desire to magically overcome them.
Or, as another example, perhaps a Barbarian got their hands on a Wish and wanted to gain an extra attack, above and beyond the two they gain by level 5, so they would have three attacks as part of an attack action.
Things like this that clearly break the intended balance of a class, but aren't unreasonable things for a character to desire.

To be the voice of a possibly overly permissive DM:
Sorcerer gets the ability to transform their sorcery points to any spell level slot they want, and maybe a few more points.
Barbarian gets Permanent Haste.

Both lose the ability to receive a permanent boon from Wish in this way, forever (or at least without losing the current boon), even if the caster doesn't lose Wish usage. There are limits, but honestly, if you've gotten to level 17 and used a Wish for something as minor as a personal powerup of this sort, I'd rather just give you one.

[truemane]

In 5E, I just go by the text for the spell and any scrolls anyone might happen to find (and I generally don't allow anything much greater than the effects listed). Better Wishes than that are in the realm of DM fiat.

Historically, I used to rule that a Wish is always granted by the 'nearest' wish-granting entity. Which was usually a deity of some sort, but might be a Ki-Rin or a Genie or whatever. Once you cast it, they have to grant it, but they interpreted it according to their alignment or goals or motives.

A very lawful creature will interpret the Wish precisely, an evil or chaotic creature might give you the Monkey's Paw Treatment, a Good creature might pervert the Wish if they feel it's selfish or harmful.

So on the rare occasion the players got access to a Wish, it turned into an in-game quest to work out what entity was most amenable to their interests and what they needed to do to curry favour with them, and then how to make sure the right entity is 'close by' when the Wish is cast.

The more egregious the Wish , the more favour they need to curry to ensure it goes the way they want (and, possibly, the more interest other entities might have in interfering).

It was my go-to method for years and years. I always disliked the overly adversarial "precise-wording" paradigm older editions basically mandated. So I changed it from an unresolvable OC conflict to an resolvable IC conflict, which made for good stories.

[Vahnavoi]

What in the case of the character being smarter than the player? The Wizard with 20 int is almost assuredly better at getting the wording right than the player piloting them.

This has always been a false argument.

D&D is a game, decision-making is always down to the player in the end. Consider something simpler, like Augury or Contact Other Plane: the character's abilities are already factored into the number of questions you can ask and the fact that the spells can be cast at all. Same here. The character's intelligence is already factored in that the player gets to wish anything at all. The rest is up to the player.

Furthermore, there are no genuine wizards of superhuman intelligence around to truly answer how such a person would act. Any questions of the sort "how would this person behave?" have to be answered by real people. If it's not the wizard's player, then the next closest possibilities are the other players, or the dungeon master. So, in effect, a person going "I don't know what to do but my character would" is effectively saying "I don't know how to play my character, would somebody else please play my character?".

Alternative way to look at it is that the wish is always made to an interpreter that is at most as intelligent as the dungeon master. This is a real life fact, but it can be a fact in the game just as well. So even if we presume a fantastically intelligent wizard, the actual wish has to be dumbed down to parameters legible to the allmighty idiot running the actual function. That would also explain why only some effects can be achieved with certainty: those are the only ones well-defined, for anything else, the wizard is guessing how an interpreter of unknown intelligence would react to their wording, exactly like the player is.

[Darth Credence]

Huh, I'm surprised more people aren't worried about the wording...I find that as part of the spell's fun. How do you word your wish in such a way that it gets you what you want without totally being screwed over by negative effects. And as a DM, what are the loopholes the player left open that allow me to technically fulfill the precise wording of the wish.

I know it might seem like DM versus player, but I love the Monkey's Paw idea.

I don't worry about the wording because of an experience back in AD&D. I was a player, and one of the other players had a wish to use. They wrote - by hand, in cursive - a 20-page contract for a wish. They laid this on the DM near the beginning of a session. The DM then started to read it, taking notes on it. When 15 minutes later, he had reviewed the first four pages, one of the other players stood up and said, 'if this is today's game, you don't need the rest of us here' (something like that, it's been about 30 years). The DM, deeply involved in reading this contract, just nodded. That was not what the one who stood up expected - he thought the response would be that the DM could do it later. But the rest of us ended up leaving and did not play that day. I don't even remember what the wish was or why it needed such a long contract - I don't recall it having any impact on the campaign. I do know that there is no way I ever want to be in that kind of situation, so I'm never going to get into caring about the precise wording.

[KorvinStarmast]

Work with the DM, not against them.

{snip}

But again, I’d suggest not trying to surprise your DM with this and run your thoughts by them before you get there. Sound advice.


In 5E, I just go by the text for the spell and any scrolls anyone might happen to find (and I generally don't allow anything much greater than the effects listed). Better Wishes than that are in the realm of DM fiat.

Historically, I used to rule that a Wish is always granted by the 'nearest' wish-granting entity. Which was usually a deity of some sort, but might be a Ki-Rin or a Genie or whatever. Once you cast it, they have to grant it, but they interpreted it according to their alignment or goals or motives.

A very lawful creature will interpret the Wish precisely, an evil or chaotic creature might give you the Monkey's Paw Treatment, a Good creature might pervert the Wish if they feel it's selfish or harmful.

So on the rare occasion the players got access to a Wish, it turned into an in-game quest to work out what entity was most amenable to their interests and what they needed to do to curry favour with them, and then how to make sure the right entity is 'close by' when the Wish is cast.

The more egregious the Wish , the more favour they need to curry to ensure it goes the way they want (and, possibly, the more interest other entities might have in interfering).

It was my go-to method for years and years. I always disliked the overly adversarial "precise-wording" paradigm older editions basically mandated. So I changed it from an unresolvable OC conflict to an resolvable IC conflict, which made for good stories. I am stealing this.

This has always been a false argument.

D&D is a game, decision-making is always down to the player in the end. Consider something simpler, like Augury or Contact Other Plane: the character's abilities are already factored into the number of questions you can ask and the fact that the spells can be cast at all. Same here. The character's intelligence is already factored in that the player gets to wish anything at all. The rest is up to the player.

Furthermore, there are no genuine wizards of superhuman intelligence around to truly answer how such a person would act. Any questions of the sort "how would this person behave?" have to be answered by real people. If it's not the wizard's player, then the next closest possibilities are the other players, or the dungeon master. So, in effect, a person going "I don't know what to do but my character would" is effectively saying "I don't know how to play my character, would somebody else please play my character?".

Alternative way to look at it is that the wish is always made to an interpreter that is at most as intelligent as the dungeon master. This is a real life fact, but it can be a fact in the game just as well. So even if we presume a fantastically intelligent wizard, the actual wish has to be dumbed down to parameters legible to the allmighty idiot running the actual function. That would also explain why only some effects can be achieved with certainty: those are the only ones well-defined, for anything else, the wizard is guessing how an interpreter of unknown intelligence would react to their wording, exactly like the player is.
Yep.

[sithlordnergal]

IMO it's precisely the DM vs player issue that I want to avoid. IF a player actually wants that dynamic then I'll abide it, and we'll have a conversation about it.

On the other hand, I too like the monkey paw idea, but then I'd rather have an NPC be responsible for the corruption. Which is why I prefer to have an efreeti give a wish than a genie.
Likewise the wish can fail as per RAW, and it's entirely up to the DM. So it's very difficult for a player to corrupt the game.



What in the case of the character being smarter than the player? The Wizard with 20 int is almost assuredly better at getting the wording right than the player piloting them.

I meean, I'd actually say being able to avoid the pitfalls of Wish accidentally backfiring due to poor wording falls more on Wisdom than Intelligence. But that's neither here nor there. To answer the actual question, its pretty simple: I allow the entire table to chime in when someone trying to properly word a Wish spell. It goes from a single player to a sort of puzzle that the entire party joins in on. And I'll give them certain hints, nudges, and occasionally remind players about how the rules of the game work to help the player close loopholes or issues that I see as glaringly obvious.

Sometimes it works out and the table is able to come together to make a near airtight Wish that leaves me with little to no wiggle room to give them a detriment. Other times, the players will either miss something or forget to add some details that allow me to mess with them.

As for the DM vs Player aspect, I do a few things to help ease that. Helping the players avoid a couple of pitfalls really helps to diminish that feeling of DM vs. Player. I also make sure players know how I run Wish. I warn them when they first obtain Wish, and warn them again when they're planning on casting Wish. I also give the table as much time as they want/need to come up with a well worded Wish.



I don't worry about the wording because of an experience back in AD&D. I was a player, and one of the other players had a wish to use. They wrote - by hand, in cursive - a 20-page contract for a wish. They laid this on the DM near the beginning of a session. The DM then started to read it, taking notes on it. When 15 minutes later, he had reviewed the first four pages, one of the other players stood up and said, 'if this is today's game, you don't need the rest of us here' (something like that, it's been about 30 years). The DM, deeply involved in reading this contract, just nodded. That was not what the one who stood up expected - he thought the response would be that the DM could do it later. But the rest of us ended up leaving and did not play that day. I don't even remember what the wish was or why it needed such a long contract - I don't recall it having any impact on the campaign. I do know that there is no way I ever want to be in that kind of situation, so I'm never going to get into caring about the precise wording.

...Ok, I can see why that would turn you off of the wording for Wish. Most wishes I deal with are a few sentences long at most. I've never had a player bring a 20 page contract for Wish. DM should have absolutely read that after the game.

[JackPhoenix]

I don't worry about the wording because of an experience back in AD&D. I was a player, and one of the other players had a wish to use. They wrote - by hand, in cursive - a 20-page contract for a wish. They laid this on the DM near the beginning of a session. The DM then started to read it, taking notes on it. When 15 minutes later, he had reviewed the first four pages, one of the other players stood up and said, 'if this is today's game, you don't need the rest of us here' (something like that, it's been about 30 years). The DM, deeply involved in reading this contract, just nodded. That was not what the one who stood up expected - he thought the response would be that the DM could do it later. But the rest of us ended up leaving and did not play that day. I don't even remember what the wish was or why it needed such a long contract - I don't recall it having any impact on the campaign. I do know that there is no way I ever want to be in that kind of situation, so I'm never going to get into caring about the precise wording.

All versions of Wish I know of require the caster to speak the wish out loud. If a player did that, I'd give him the contract back and tell him to read it, or better yet, keep it and tell him to say the wish. Any significant pause in reading would be considered the end of speech. If he starts listing terms and conditions first, he's not wishing for anything, and wasted the spell. If he wishes for anything, the wish happens, and no conditions added later will be taken into account.

[JLandan]

I don't ban Wish because it has built in guards against abuse.
I would allow anything that fits the written description of the spell, so long as the "wish" is in game.
Real life wishes do not get granted. No game mechanics can be altered. The re-roll option is a recognized "in game" phenomenon.
I would not allow extra attack, added levels, extra spell slots or free snacks.

[sithlordnergal]

I don't ban Wish because it has built in guards against abuse.
I would allow anything that fits the written description of the spell, so long as the "wish" is in game.
Real life wishes do not get granted. No game mechanics can be altered. The re-roll option is a recognized "in game" phenomenon.
I would not allow extra attack, added levels, extra spell slots or free snacks.

Aren't spell slots and extra attacks an in-game phenomenon, recognized in game and referenced as an in game phenomenon?

[NichG]

...Ok, I can see why that would turn you off of the wording for Wish. Most wishes I deal with are a few sentences long at most. I've never had a player bring a 20 page contract for Wish. DM should have absolutely read that after the game.

DM should have granted the first sentence and thrown out the rest without reading it. Partial fulfillment is a thing.

IMO, rules lawyering of the actual game rules is a bad enough table dynamic without adding in-character Wish-lawyering to it.

[Darth Credence]

I'm fairly certain that the two of them loved the entire idea of the 'wish as contract' and having the DM look for holes to poke in it. For them, that was a huge plus as part of the game. And if it had just been them, fine, whatever makes you happy. But there were three other players at the table who had no desire to sit there for it.

[JLandan]

Aren't spell slots and extra attacks an in-game phenomenon, recognized in game and referenced as an in game phenomenon?

Not additional spell slots beyond those granted by caster levels. Nor are additional extra attacks beyond those granted by class levels. Those would be meta-game, not in-game. The spell description is explicit about what it can do. None of it involves meta-game knowledge or core rules changes. Suppose the wish was to roll a d30 instead of a d20? Should that be allowed? Or automatic success for all saving throws? Or to instantly advance ten levels? What if the wish was for ownership of the DM's car?

Wish alters reality in-game, not meta-game.

It can sometimes be difficult to tell the difference between meta-game and in-game. A good question to ask is who the wish is for, the PC or the player? You may say spell slots and extra attacks are in-game and allow such, perhaps with some crazy rationalization. I would not.

[sithlordnergal]

Not additional spell slots beyond those granted by caster levels. Nor are additional extra attacks beyond those granted by class levels. Those would be meta-game, not in-game. The spell description is explicit about what it can do. None of it involves meta-game knowledge or core rules changes. Suppose the wish was to roll a d30 instead of a d20? Should that be allowed? Or automatic success for all saving throws? Or to instantly advance ten levels? What if the wish was for ownership of the DM's car?

Wish alters reality in-game, not meta-game.

It can sometimes be difficult to tell the difference between meta-game and in-game. A good question to ask is who the wish is for, the PC or the player? You may say spell slots and extra attacks are in-game and allow such, perhaps with some crazy rationalization. I would not.

But isn't there a literal in-game Boon from the DMG that grants an additional 9th level spell slot? Wouldn't that satisfy your condition for it being in-game and not meta-game since you consider rerolling a d20 to be an in-gams thing and not a meta-game thing?

I mean, its not exactly the slippery slope you're making it out to be. Though if a player were to ask to roll a d30 instead of a d20...I might allow it for a single roll provided they have a physical d30 on them. XD If only because that would be a very interesting dice to see.

[Darth Credence]

Though if a player were to ask to roll a d30 instead of a d20...I might allow it for a single roll provided they have a physical d30 on them. XD If only because that would be a very interesting dice to see.

I have one. I don't remember what it was for, but I used it back in the AD&D days.

[KorvinStarmast]

I have one. I don't remember what it was for, but I used it back in the AD&D days. You can roll a d30 by rolling a d6 and a d10 at the same time.
die result of the d6 1,2: d10 roll is as it shows.
die result of the d6 3,4: add 10 to d10 roll result
die result of the d6 5,6: add 20 to d10 roll result.

[Darth Credence]

You can roll a d30 by rolling a d6 and a d10 at the same time.
die result of the d6 1,2: d10 roll is as it shows.
die result of the d6 3,4: add 10 to d10 roll result
die result of the d6 5,6: add 20 to d10 roll result.

Well, sure, but then you don't have a d30. I also have a d24 (looks like a cube with a squat pyramid on each face), a d14, a d7 (which is just a d14 with the numbers doubled up), a d16, and a big ol' d100 that is horrible. The d30 I at least remember using once upon a time. I use the d24, but that's because it represents the world's deities.

[KorvinStarmast]

Well, sure, but then you don't have a d30. I also have a d24 (looks like a cube with a squat pyramid on each face), a d14, a d7 (which is just a d14 with the numbers doubled up), a d16, and a big ol' d100 that is horrible. The d30 I at least remember using once upon a time. I use the d24, but that's because it represents the world's deities.

A d24 is a d12 and a d6. Roll together. d6Odd is d12 face value, d6Even is d12face value +12.
I had a d100 a long time ago, big old ball, but found that normal percentile dice are far easier to use.

[Darth Credence]

A d24 is a d12 and a d6. Roll together. d6Odd is d12 face value, d6Even is d12face value +12.
I had a d100 a long time ago, big old ball, but found that normal percentile dice are far easier to use.

I think you're missing the point. More dice are better than fewer dice:smallbiggrin:. I need them all - all the funky ones. I don't use them, because like you said, normal percentile dice are easier to use than a ball that rolls forever until it goes off the table.

[KorvinStarmast]

More dice are better than fewer dice :smallbiggrin:. I need them all - all the funky ones. I completely understand where you are coming from. I went through a similar phase years ago. My posts were mostly directed toward the "general reading audience" since I have found that many players don't use dice in the way that we all used to when there was a more limited supply and tables had different numbers that didn't match up with die faces.
I had a chance to buy a d30 a few years ago at the FLGS but declined. Had that cropped up back in the 90's I'd have bought it without thinking twice about it. :smallcool:

[lall]

Had a DM that used a d24 for attack rolls, with 20-24 as crits.

[JLandan]

But isn't there a literal in-game Boon from the DMG that grants an additional 9th level spell slot? Wouldn't that satisfy your condition for it being in-game and not meta-game since you consider rerolling a d20 to be an in-gams thing and not a meta-game thing?

I mean, its not exactly the slippery slope you're making it out to be. Though if a player were to ask to roll a d30 instead of a d20...I might allow it for a single roll provided they have a physical d30 on them. XD If only because that would be a very interesting dice to see.

I never said slippery slope, I just said I would not allow it. Boons are a variant rule that I have never used. If a player wished for a boon, I would allow it, but which boon would have to be consistent with the PC's deity.

A one time use of a d30 is a crappy wish and a waste of a 9th level slot and a further waste of a spell that the PC may lose forever (33%).

I guess you just miss my point entirely that a wish in the game should not be a wish in real life. But if you're willing to give your car to a player that wishes for it, that is your issue.

[sithlordnergal]

I never said slippery slope, I just said I would not allow it. Boons are a variant rule that I have never used. If a player wished for a boon, I would allow it, but which boon would have to be consistent with the PC's deity.

A one time use of a d30 is a crappy wish and a waste of a 9th level slot and a further waste of a spell that the PC may lose forever (33%).

I guess you just miss my point entirely that a wish in the game should not be a wish in real life. But if you're willing to give your car to a player that wishes for it, that is your issue.

I guess I am fully missing your point because I don't see how wishing for an extra spell slot or a bonus extra attack is a wish "in real life" and not "in the game"? Like...them asking for a mechanical bonus to their character isn't a real life wish...and it falls within the general things Wish does. Permanent resistance to a damage type is a mechanical thing, but its listed as a thing wish can do within the spell itself.



I have one. I don't remember what it was for, but I used it back in the AD&D days.

I would absolutely grant you that Wish because when the heck are you gonna see someone roll an actual d30. Might even let you use it for an entire encounter.

[Witty Username]

The only big thing is, if a PC makes a special request rather than spell duplication, that a spell can replicate then the wish has the effect of the spell as if they had.

[Schwann145]

This has always been a false argument.

D&D is a game, decision-making is always down to the player in the end.
~snip~

I don't disagree. This is more in concern of the overly-adversarial "legalese" style of Wish fulfillment that some DMs prefer. If a DM requires a player to be a real-life lawyer to get their Wish just so, it's only fair (IMO) to point out that the character may very well be better at it than the player (and, equally so, better at it than the DM).
But the DM has wildly imbalanced power in the back-and-fourth of Wish fulfillment, despite also not knowing how to properly word a thing.

It's less about getting someone else to play your character, and more about reasonable expectations of what players (and DMs) can actually bring to a table/conversation.

[Vahnavoi]

I'm afraid you missed the point.

Suppose that instead of wording a wish, I'm asking you to lift a rock in a live-action roleplay. You can say "my character would be able to lift this", but the fact of the matter is that your character does not exist as an independent entity capable of doing things. The rock will only move by real people moving it. Hence, the character's supposed skills only exist as modifiers to what you, the player, have to do. For example, if your character is fantastically strong, I can make the rock out of styrofoam. You still have to lift it. If you still can't, then neither can your character.

With Wish, the character's skills are already factored in for the player to make any wish at all. The rock already is styrofoam. What the player brings to the table is the exact model of what their character brings to the table.

[Schwann145]

I'm afraid you missed the point.

Suppose that instead of wording a wish, I'm asking you to lift a rock in a live-action roleplay. You can say "my character would be able to lift this", but the fact of the matter is that your character does not exist as an independent entity capable of doing things. The rock will only move by real people moving it. Hence, the character's supposed skills only exist as modifiers to what you, the player, have to do. For example, if your character is fantastically strong, I can make the rock out of styrofoam. You still have to lift it. If you still can't, then neither can your character.

With Wish, the character's skills are already factored in for the player to make any wish at all. The rock already is styrofoam. What the player brings to the table is the exact model of what their character brings to the table.

I would have to hard-disagree with the notion that a D&D character is meant to be an extension of the player. You could have a game where this is the case, but that is by no means the default assumption for the game.

[RSP]

I never said slippery slope, I just said I would not allow it. Boons are a variant rule that I have never used. If a player wished for a boon, I would allow it, but which boon would have to be consistent with the PC's deity.

A one time use of a d30 is a crappy wish and a waste of a 9th level slot and a further waste of a spell that the PC may lose forever (33%).

I guess you just miss my point entirely that a wish in the game should not be a wish in real life. But if you're willing to give your car to a player that wishes for it, that is your issue.

I still don’t see how an extra 9th level slot isn’t in-game. Do you operate that casters are unaware of the level of spells, or of how their energy to cast spells (spell slots) are cut out to only work in certain power levels?

If you use Spell Points, it would be different, but you’d still have in-game characters aware of spell levels and, I’m assuming, that they can only cast one level 6, one level 7, one level 8 and one level 9 spell.

I just don’t see how it isn’t an in-game thing to realize you can only cast a 9th level spell once a day, or wishing that you could instead cast that highest level of spell power twice instead of once.

[Vahnavoi]

I would have to hard-disagree with the notion that a D&D character is meant to be an extension of the player. You could have a game where this is the case, but that is by no means the default assumption for the game.
Characters as seen in play are always extensions of the people playing them in every human-run game in existence. The only practical alternatives are to make the characters extensions of a computer program or some other machinery.

Or what alternative did you have in mind? A game book can posit anything it likes, it won't make a character into anything more than stage directions written on paper, aimed at some human.

[KorvinStarmast]

Characters as seen in play are always extensions of the people playing them in every human-run game in existence. The only practical alternatives are to make the characters extensions of a computer program or some other machinery.

Or what alternative did you have in mind? A game book can posit anything it likes, it won't make a character into anything more than stage directions written on paper, aimed at some human. What amazes me is that people need to be reminded of this. +1 (It would probably be off topic to delve into the myth of player - character separation...)

[Schwann145]

You can say "my character would be able to lift this", but the fact of the matter is that your character does not exist as an independent entity capable of doing things.
The rock will only move by real people moving it.
You still have to lift it. If you still can't, then neither can your character.
I'm a bit confused.
So if, during a LARP, the challenge was to lift a 1000lb park-decoration boulder (for whatever in-game contrived reason), and I definitely can't do that (but my character, with their fantasy strength and magic items could), that means that my character can't? I cannot (should not?) be able to suggest that, while I cannot do the real-life action of lifting the boulder, my character could and therefore we should move forward under the assumption that they did?
Further building on this, players with physical limitations cannot (should not?) play characters who don't have such limitations? If I'm wheelchair bound, I shouldn't expect my character to be able to run?

That's how the above reads to me. Am I misinterpreting?


With Wish, the character's skills are already factored in for the player to make any wish at all.
In what way? Stat requirements for spellcasting are not a part of 5e.

[rel]

The existing rules for wish are good enough to cover this situation in most games. If the campaign was heavily focused on the tactical combat minigame then I might have reservations about messing with the game balance. And if I was running a campaign where muggles actually get to participate in non-combat encounters wish wouldn't be on the spell list along with most of the other spells.

But for a 'standard' campaign, I'd stick to the spells wording.
I'd remind the player that they're trying an open wish, and as per the spells wording, it might not work how they wanted, might come with unforeseen consequences and might permanently burn out their ability to cast wish.
Also, no matter what, the stress will leave them vulnerable for 2D4 days, and any enemy with access to divination (hardly unusual at level 17+) might try to attack them while they're vulnerable.

If the player is happy gambling, they can state their wish, and we break out the really big percentile dice and have them roll 4 times:
1st percentile roll - how close they get to the effect they wanted
2nd percentile roll - how bad the side effects are
3rd percentile roll - will they ever cast wish again
4th percentile roll - did any enemies notice what they've done and decide to capitalise

Roll really well and you get your permanent extra spell slot with no consequences. But roll poorly and you may well end up crippled and humiliated with powerful enemies at your door and one of your most powerful spells permanently burned away...

The question is: Do I feel lucky?