Tuesday, April 14, 2026

Let's Fix Wish

Wish is a spell that enables the character to literally alter reality within the boundaries of their mental conception, allowing them to create, destroy, or change anything that they can fully visualise and understand. The power of the Wish spell, however, is limited in critical ways that have been outlined here as precisely as possible, with the caveat that it may be necessary, in game play, to further refine the language necessary to define this very difficult and badly mishandled form of magic.

| range = 360 ft.; see text
| duration = permanent
| area of effect = see text
| casting time = 5 rounds
| save = none
| level = mage (9th)

This said, the magic is not subject to linguistic interpretation by the dungeon master of the player's intentions, regardless of the player's language. When casting the spell, the player makes clear what is being wished for, without presenting a "phrase of wishing" for interpretation, and then the DM permits that result. The DM does not re-interpret, or create invented consequences that are in no way part of the spell or this description here of it, nor does the DM impose any "monkey's paw" thinking in the DM's interpretation. The only effect of the wish spell is what the player wished for on behalf of the player's character, period.

Limitations

When employing the spell, the caster is first and foremost limited by the range of the spell, in terms of what can be affected. Because of this, the wish spell cannot choose to wish away the planet, or a country, or any entity that is larger than the area of effected. The spell cannot be used to cause a country to cease its existence, since some part of that country will continue to exist outside the spell range. With regards to the limitations on "concepts," this point must be clearly understood.

Objects that exist at the time of the spell's casting must be within line-of-sight of the caster at the time they are acted upon. "All the creatures inside a building" that cannot be seen cannot be wished out of existence. All creatures within the character's line-of-sight, however, can be wished away in exactly that fashion. This applies to any other effect that is intended, contained within the vast number of possibilities present in the spell list and the compendium of the game setting's possibilities. Persons seen can be killed, brought alive, their ability stats improved, their wealth improved — they can be demon possessed or the reverse if so wished. But persons who are not in line of sight cannot be summoned to the caster, because they cannot be seen. The caster cannot have the King of England suddenly brought before him or her, because that individual is not in the caster's line-of-sight, unless that king is already in the caster's presence. For similar reasons, the caster cannot teleport to a distant land by wish, because that would be out of the spell's range.

Conception

The caster is limited by what can be conceived. The caster can improve another character's strength to make them "as strong as possible," but the caster cannot conceive of what an "18 strength" is. Further, the caster cannot conceive of "giant strength" — and therefore, while the caster can say the words, "as strong as a frost giant," the caster doesn't really understand what that strength would be like in the body of a character, or themself. Therefore, the wish would be fulfilled, by making the character the strongest possible that they could be, which in my game world is a 19 strength, which can conceivably occur through existing game modifiers. This change would be permanent.

In like manner, while the caster might wish to produce an enormous number of gold pieces, or merely an enormous amount of treasure, again, this defies conception. The player knows the number "one billion" but the human cannot literally conceive of this number; the player cannot, in fact, conceive of the number 351. Were I to pile that many apples in front of the player, their number would have to be physically counted, or my assertion trusted: one could not simply look at the pile and know. Thus, for things that are wished for (which are not brought from elsewhere, but literally appear of their own accord within range and line-of-sight), the idea counts, not the number. For a really large amount of wealth, the character could reasonably say, "As much as the largest horde in the world." But since the player does not know how large that actually is, the amount itself would have to depend on the character's actual experience. More or less, take all the wealth already controlled by the whole party, then double that and have it appear. Job done.

This line of thinking must apply to anything that is asked for, that does not already exist.

Single-use Realism

Once a thing has been wished for, it can never be wished for again. The caster cannot wish for another treasure the next day, or for any treasure, of any kind, ever again. If a character is made to be strong, no other character can ever be likewise affected, even to the tune of one ability point. This is a severe limit on the spell. It says that the caster must consider the use of the spell in any circumstance, since if one frost giant is obliterated out of existence, not only may no other frost giant ever be gotten rid of again with the spell, nor may any other kind of "giant" — because, and this needs to be very clear, "distinctiveness between objects affected only goes so far." Except for colour, one dragon is close enough to every other dragon as to consider the entire species as the same. The same goes for every demon, every snake, every spider and so on. A distinction can be made reasonable for a weretiger vs. a werewolf... those cannot be mistaken for each other. But a weretiger vs. a tiger? It would depend on what shape the lycanthrope took.

And yes, this applies to races also. The caster gets one wish obliterating a human or humans, one wish obliterating an elf or elves, one wish obliterating a troll or trolls. An argument cannot be made that the wish was to heal only humans named "Dave." No, not distinctive enough. The individual DM can choose where to draw the line, but there must be a line. If, therefore, one is going to use the spell to obliterate an enemy, it would be best not to obliterate a large number of mixed raced creatures at a single blow. Best to take out all the frost giants and then use other means to get rid of the rest. And the caster, yes, should consider, is this really as many frost giants as I might have to get rid of someday in one blow?

Uses

Possible uses for the wish spell include, and are by no means limited to, Restore hit points, resurrect a dead creature, cure disease, cure poison, remove curses, repair damaged magic items, create non-magical or magical objects or items, duplicate the effects of any spell except those not possible by the limitations above, make a given spell's effect permanent, grant immunity to a condition, enhance ability scores, grant proficiency in a skill, create buildings, dismiss a spell, push an enemy outside the range of the spell, dispel magic, create a protective barrier, grant the ability flight, take away or restore a memory, alter terrain within range, make a weather-type permanent. And many other things a player can think of.

8 comments:

  1. I read the title of your post and said "YES!" out loud.
    I got to the all-important limitation of never repeating a wish and said "Oh, yeah!"
    Fantastic stuff, Alexis! I think you've really done it with this one. Though I'll be sure to give you an actual play report if I ever have a PC get high enough to cast the spell :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm of the opinion that wish should not be a spell, only granted in limited number by items(rings, lamps, etc) or creatures(greater djinn, deities, etc)

    ReplyDelete
  3. I like the "uses" limitation even though it would require some bookkeeping. For the "conception" limitation it seems the PCs can conceive of scale, such as an elephant, and of a material, like gold. Then they could make a gold elephant or turn a pond into mithril? Or is the idea that such a one time influx is acceptable? As an aside I have felt wish always seemed to be better as the only 10th level spell.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It really is up to the DM to say. Without gotcha mechanics, a gold elephant is fine; that's a lot of work to break down five tons of gold, in a very inconvenient shape, but sure enough, could be done. The same can be said for a mithril pond. How does one pry up one end of a metal pond that is made of material stronger than anything we might want to break it with? Perhaps, once the pond is wished into existence, it's within the realm of a second wish to break it into useable bars that will fit in a forge. Arguably, that wouldn't be the same wish.

      I don't have a problem with these things. By the time a character is 18th level, wealth really isn't a problem. And the wealth of a nation like France in my game world amounts to more than a 360 ft. radius pond would include. My economy is based on 1 reference being equal to 18,000+ pounds of gold... better than nine tons, almost two elephants. And there are 22,000+ references of goods produced throughout the game world, or something like 39,000 gold elephants. Per Year. So that, in my system at least, no amount of anything that can be wished for, that will fit in a 360 ft. radius circle, is likely to wreck my economy.

      Delete
  4. Thank you for clarifying. That would wreck many a rpg economy and I'm glad, and not surprised, that yours is more robust. It is amusing to think the effect of a wish could be roughly a year's reference in the trade table.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Think of the entity that comes to take their cut; they'll be made up of wish-possessing mages too.

      Delete
  5. This seems like it incentivises spending a lot of time pinning down the perfect wish to avoid wasting your one shot (and apparently arguing with the DM over what you can and can't conceptualize), while also forbidding a lot of classic wishes from fiction - e.g. Aladdin makes a lot of wishes to transport himself.

    (Side note: if you can't affect anything outside of the radius, does that mean anyone resurrected is a copy, and their original soul is still in the afterlife? Food for thought.)

    I can't say I'm crazy about the "conceptualize" limit, which seems like it's mostly just there for the GM to argue "your character can't imagine that" if they're worried a wish might break the game. I don't feel like I have a great sense of what does and does not count, and the closest I can get is via metagaming; obviously I can't conceptualize every thought in a person's head or every cell in their body, yet I'm explicitly allowed to heal and resurrect and presumably mind control/alter them in a bunch of ways. Though the "familiarity" angle helps... nicely self-balancing! I'd be tempted to lean harder on that, explicitly saying you can't make anyone stronger than the strongest member of their species you've seen, any pile of treasure bigger than any you've seen, etc. Adds a nice incentive to adventure, as well, arguably.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the body resurrected is inside the radius, then the soul is called from the afterlife, the dimensions of which do not conform to earthly space.

      I can appreciate the resistance against conceptualise; it requires a very close understanding of the medieval mind and the limitations on actual human imagination, as well as a background in a considerable amount of human thought processes. BUT, it's better than the "gotcha" mechanic. I would solve it by (a) being very generous as a DM, since it's not likely to break my game if it's not an ongoing structure, and (b) reasoning with the sort of player I'd allow in my game world. I wouldn't tolerate a player who treated their wish spell as something they felt they had to hyper-incentivise with every use. I am a good enough DM with a good enough reputation and reliable source of players that I don't have to tolerate munchkins or min-maxers at my game table.

      I'd argue, to use your framing, you can't make a creature that doesn't exist (strength is irrelevant, because there's no way to conceive of a "strong" elephant vs. a not strong one, all elephants are "strong"), while literature gives plenty of conception, such as 1001 Nights, of truly gigantic treasure hordes, far larger than the character would have "seen." Like I said, my world's economy is big enough, Aladdin's treasure wouldn't break it, and an 18th level mage in my game is going already likely have more money than they can think to spend. Their own wealth makes wishing for wealth less meaningful.

      There are undoubtably "shaking out" problems that game play would be needed for. But really, I don't see an unsurmountable issue here.

      Delete