Wish spell grants access to other classes' spell list

[Shining Wrath]

This may have been discussed before and I missed it, but the text for Wish says

"The basic use of this spell is to duplicate any other spell of 8th level or lower. You don't need to meet any requirements in that spell, ...".

There's no limitation.

Wizards and Sorcerers therefore have access to all spells of level 1-8 on ANY list.

[Daehron]

This may have been discussed before and I missed it, but the text for Wish says

"The basic use of this spell is to duplicate any other spell of 8th level or lower. You don't need to meet any requirements in that spell, ...".

There's no limitation.

Wizards and Sorcerers therefore have access to all spells of level 1-8 on ANY list.

Took you 17 levels to get there, huh? At best what 2 or 3 times a day, huh?

How quaint, Bards pick spells from any spell list as low as level 6. Including at level 18 snagging Wish from those stuck up wizard types.

[Daishain]

Yes, but they must give up a 9th level spell slot to do so, which are just a mite rare.

[archaeo]

Wish just doesn't strike me as being that much to worry about, excepting cheesy moves like simulacrum chains. Once a day, you get to do virtually anything another caster could do, a very appropriate touchstone spell for the versatile Bard and Wizard. Meanwhile, Druids are getting infinite HP, Clerics are getting 1/week miracles, etc. High-level casters in 5e get very powerful options with a bunch of utility. Given adventuring day length, however, a single wish is probably not going to be an instant I Win button.

(As an aside, it seems crazy for Bards not to take wish with their level 18 Magical Secrets feature; it's the magical equivalent of a Swiss Army Knife.)

[Objulen]

Getting access to any spell up to level 8 once per day for a 9th level spell slot is very useful, but not as incredibly overpowered as before. TBH, I'm very happy with the changes that Wizards made to Wish, other than the massive money machine that it remains.

[archaeo]

TBH, I'm very happy with the changes that Wizards made to Wish, other than the massive money machine that it remains.

Wish says, "The stress of casting this spell to produce any effect other than duplicating another spell weakens you," and creating 25,000 gp of wealth is not spell duplication. You could probably argue that "alternatively" in the beginning of the third paragraph means those listed examples are things that wish gives you without causing you to suffer post-casting weakness. But I think the intent seems to be that, as long as you're duplicating spells of 8th level and below, everything fine, but anything else gives you all the disadvantages, including the 33% chance of burning out your wish capabilities.

[Eslin]

Wish says, "The stress of casting this spell to produce any effect other than duplicating another spell weakens you," and creating 25,000 gp of wealth is not spell duplication. You could probably argue that "alternatively" in the beginning of the third paragraph means those listed examples are things that wish gives you without causing you to suffer post-casting weakness. But I think the intent seems to be that, as long as you're duplicating spells of 8th level and below, everything fine, but anything else gives you all the disadvantages, including the 33% chance of burning out your wish capabilities.

Which is fine, since no-one would ever cast wish as anything but a spell duplicator in anything but the direst circumstances. The one incurring the 33% chance is your simulacrum, and that doesn't matter since it can't regain spells anyway.

[Easy_Lee]

Which is fine, since no-one would ever cast wish as anything but a spell duplicator in anything but the direst circumstances. The one incurring the 33% chance is your simulacrum, and that doesn't matter since it can't regain spells anyway.

And many expect simulacrums casting wish to get errata'd in some way anyhow.

[archaeo]

Which is fine, since no-one would ever cast wish as anything but a spell duplicator in anything but the direst circumstances. The one incurring the 33% chance is your simulacrum, and that doesn't matter since it can't regain spells anyway.


And many expect simulacrums casting wish to get errata'd in some way anyhow.

Yeah, the wish/simulacrum thing is just an outright broken mistake that I refuse to believe was an intentional design decision. It'll get patched sooner rather than later.

[Objulen]

Wish says, "The stress of casting this spell to produce any effect other than duplicating another spell weakens you," and creating 25,000 gp of wealth is not spell duplication. You could probably argue that "alternatively" in the beginning of the third paragraph means those listed examples are things that wish gives you without causing you to suffer post-casting weakness. But I think the intent seems to be that, as long as you're duplicating spells of 8th level and below, everything fine, but anything else gives you all the disadvantages, including the 33% chance of burning out your wish capabilities.

I'd have to check my PHB, but IIRC that only happens if you cast it more than once per day.

[Daishain]

I'd have to check my PHB, but IIRC that only happens if you cast it more than once per day.
It occurs every time you use the spell for purposes other than emulating other spells.

[Gnomes2169]

I'd have to check my PHB, but IIRC that only happens if you cast it more than once per day.

The problem with this is, you can only cast Wish 1/day. You would only get it back from a long rest, and long rests are only a 1/day thing.

[Objulen]

You're right, you can't use Wish for anything else without risking losing it. Simulacrum is the way to make Wish the massive money machine.

[Eslin]

Yeah, the wish/simulacrum thing is just an outright broken mistake that I refuse to believe was an intentional design decision. It'll get patched sooner rather than later.

The problem is, that leaves wish useless. With a 1/3 chance of never being able to cast it again, you get two non-spell-imitating wishes on average before you can't cast the spell ever again (including the spell imitating use of it). That'd be sort of fine if the effects were worth that, but the other listed effects definitely aren't, and wish is also used for a variety of other things like restoring someone's brain if they got intellect devoured.

There should not be both 'you need wish to fix this' and 'you can't cast wish again ever'. Simulacrum is the only solution to this.

[Baveboi]

If you used Wish to Symulacrum yourself wouldn't the Symulacrum be you but without a 9th level slot, since the spell takes effect after the Wish was cast?

That has been how I explained to my players why they couldn't Manshoon their way into every situation at higher levels. It IS possible to create innumerable clones if you have strong magic (vide the case above), but it takes time and resources and not a simply casting of Wish.

Also, wouldn't the Symulacrum of your Symulacrum be under your Symulacrum's control? If you break the chain anywhere you basically have an insurgency of infinite yous. And that's an extra-planar paddlin.


The problem is, that leaves wish useless. With a 1/3 chance of never being able to cast it again, you get two non-spell-imitating wishes on average before you can't cast the spell ever again (including the spell imitating use of it). That'd be sort of fine if the effects were worth that, but the other listed effects definitely aren't, and wish is also used for a variety of other things like restoring someone's brain if they got intellect devoured.

There should not be both 'you need wish to fix this' and 'you can't cast wish again ever'. Simulacrum is the only solution to this.

Are you out of your mind, Eslin? That is a blatant purposeful misinterpretation of the intention behind the rules. Wishes are powerful and should be used in dire circumstances or to be a magic "trump card" and not to be abused in infinite replication factories. Plus, no one ever has said that you absolutely need it.

A powerful enough spellcaster can easily come up with different solutions; from Planar Binding a Genie to get your Wishes all the way up to creating a new spell with the help of your DM. You could make a deal with the devil, make a deal with a God, bribe a powerful Genie, pay a cleric! ANYTHING is possible if you don't use such terrible excuses to try and get away with something that would surely be penalized with all sorts of paddlin.

[Eslin]

Are you out of your mind, Eslin? That is a blatant purposeful misinterpretation of the intention behind the rules. Wishes are powerful and should be used in dire circumstances or to be a magic "trump card" and not to be abused in infinite replication factories. Plus, no one ever has said that you absolutely need it.

A powerful enough spellcaster can easily come up with different solutions; from Planar Binding a Genie to get your Wishes all the way up to creating a new spell with the help of your DM. You could make a deal with the devil, make a deal with a God, bribe a powerful Genie, pay a cleric! ANYTHING is possible if you don't use such terrible excuses to try and get away with something that would surely be penalized with all sorts of paddlin.

Yeah, that attitude would be fine if, as stated, creatures didn't start having effects that need wish to fix from CR 2. But they do, so you're going to need a convenient source of wishes.

[Baveboi]

Yeah, that attitude would be fine if, as stated, creatures didn't start having effects that need wish to fix from CR 2. But they do, so you're going to need a convenient source of wishes.

I will assume you are still referring to the Intellect Devourer which I also assume you haven't faced in a real game situation. They are chumps, you can easily toss them around with push actions and even if they get the sneaks on a fighter he will likely have a buddy to push the thing and kick it's face in. Even our Sorcerer managed to lock the beasty down in melee while our druid took it out.

Now, if you present me more than 3 situations (following the rule of magic here) that ABSOLUTELY need a wish to be beaten, reversed in worst case scenarios or to become appropriately challenging than I will still not concede that justifies a infinite iFactory exploit. But I will be deeply hurt by my inability to find such a thing even after holding the MM and PHB for what amounts to two weeks and having playing the game constantly for a month now.

Also, want a convenient source of Wishes? Summon a mother****ing Genie, lock it inside a lamp or a ring or the bootlaces of your shoes and bribe/extort/torture your way into a well of wishes. You know, like any normal adventurer does. ****ing kids and their infinite copies of themselves these days /grumble mumble

Edit: Grammar grumble mumble

[Pex]

3E/Pathfinder did Wish right. Wish had specific abilities that could be done without any problems, undoing harmful effects being one of them. It was Wishing beyond those parameters that could cause problems, an intent to avoid someone trying to Win D&D. 5E could have kept the same gist of the spell but adapted to the new rules. Getting rid of inherent ability score increases is easy. No creation of magic items is fine. It should not cost a wizard to lose strength and take massive damage for spellcasting being useless for the rest of the day just because he wished everyone in the party had resistance to fire and electricity for one combat. It is a 9th level spell, his only one of the day. It's permissible to be powerful, but a completely reasonable request should not cause the player to be metaphorically slapped upside the head. Even if it is just to restore someone's brain.

We get it already. We've always gotten it. No wishing the BBEG dead. No wishing Solve The Adventure Plot. No wishing for infinite wealth and power. But come on already, stop thinking that's all we'd ever wish for and punishing us for imagined slights.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

IMO it's pretty necessary to restrict with a little more than 3e given increased limitations on casters. The ability to duplicate any other spell below 9th level is very powerful and perfectly situational, so all other 9th level spells are fighting uphill as it is.

[Objulen]

We get it already. We've always gotten it. No wishing the BBEG dead. No wishing Solve The Adventure Plot. No wishing for infinite wealth and power. But come on already, stop thinking that's all we'd ever wish for and punishing us for imagined slights.

Almost anything you could want to do with Wish can be replicated by a different spell of 8th level or lower. The change for 5e just makes it harder to make cheesy wishes and overall makes the game flow better with what is otherwise such an open-ended spell.

[Shining Wrath]

I think the 7th level Bard / Cleric spells Resurrection and arguably (is a missing brain "severed"?) Regenerate both put your brain back after an unfortunate Intellect Devourer encounter. There's absolutely no need to cast Wish in a non-spell-duplicating way to fix a missing brain. If you rule Regenerate in, Druids can fix it, too.

That means every class with 9th level spells except Warlocks can fix the ID without risking anything.

I still think it's not a CR 2 monster, mind, but let's not pretend we have to remove the limitations to creative uses of Wish because of the ID.

[thereaper]

If you used Wish to Symulacrum yourself wouldn't the Symulacrum be you but without a 9th level slot, since the spell takes effect after the Wish was cast?

That has been how I explained to my players why they couldn't Manshoon their way into every situation at higher levels. It IS possible to create innumerable clones if you have strong magic (vide the case above), but it takes time and resources and not a simply casting of Wish.

Also, wouldn't the Symulacrum of your Symulacrum be under your Symulacrum's control? If you break the chain anywhere you basically have an insurgency of infinite yous. And that's an extra-planar paddlin.

That's not how Simulacrum chains work. You use a 7th level slot to make a Simulacrum in the old-fashioned way, take a long rest to regain that slot (this step is optional), then have your Simulacrum wish for a Simulacrum of you with instructions to make that new Simulacrum loyal to you and to continue the process. Since each Simulacrum is of you and you have a 9th level slot available, each new Simulacrum will have one, too, and they'll each have half your hit points (instead of their hit points constantly decreasing with each casting).

[Job]

arguably

WHOA WHOA Whoa there, That's just, just your opinion. We are talking about the all-mighty RAW here, there can be no deviation, no designer clarification or *retch* Intent *cough* brought to the table.

What folly to think you know better, could do better than those aforementioned designers (who's clarifications totally don't count BTW) in actually play.

BEGONE WITH YOU HERETIC!!

[TheDeadlyShoe]

That's not how Simulacrum chains work. You use a 7th level slot to make a Simulacrum in the old-fashioned way, take a long rest to regain that slot (this step is optional), then have your Simulacrum wish for a Simulacrum of you with instructions to make that new Simulacrum loyal to you and to continue the process. Since each Simulacrum is of you and you have a 9th level slot available, each new Simulacrum will have one, too, and they'll each have half your hit points (instead of their hit points constantly decreasing with each casting).

I'm pretty sure a Simulacrum has to be of the caster, though I'm AWB.

[MaxWilson]

That's not how Simulacrum chains work. You use a 7th level slot to make a Simulacrum in the old-fashioned way, take a long rest to regain that slot (this step is optional), then have your Simulacrum wish for a Simulacrum of you with instructions to make that new Simulacrum loyal to you and to continue the process. Since each Simulacrum is of you and you have a 9th level slot available, each new Simulacrum will have one, too, and they'll each have half your hit points (instead of their hit points constantly decreasing with each casting).

Only, when you tell your simulacrum to order its simulacrum to obey you, how does the second simulacrum know who you are? All it can do is obey anyone it thinks is you, including other simulacra and/or people using disguises/illusions to look like you.

That's right, your simulacra farm can be hijacked.

[Baveboi]

Only, when you tell your simulacrum to order its simulacrum to obey you, how does the second simulacrum know who you are? All it can do is obey anyone it thinks is you, including other simulacra and/or people using disguises/illusions to look like you.

That's right, your simulacra farm can be hijacked.

Pretty easily, if you ask me. And that's a paddlin. The iFactory is too weak, too wobbly, too fragile for it to be anything other than the fevered dream of people that don't know what they are doing at their 17th level.

[thereaper]

Only, when you tell your simulacrum to order its simulacrum to obey you, how does the second simulacrum know who you are? All it can do is obey anyone it thinks is you, including other simulacra and/or people using disguises/illusions to look like you.

That's right, your simulacra farm can be hijacked.

Your Simulacrums are not going to attempt to deceive each other, because they are all loyal to you. They cannot take actions that get in the way of your interests.

I'm also quite confused as to how anyone would expect to trick 15 different Simulacrum at once. Remember, you are never going to meet one Simulacrum. You are going to see 50. What is the statistical likelihood that you will be able to fool all of them? Remember, they are all loyal to their creator and have no reason not to trust each other. If even one of them sees through your disguise (which is a statistical certainty), that's it.

Besides, in order to actually move against their creator would require the Simulacrum to go after the actual Simulacrum factory that they came from. Since Simulacrum production is the smoking gun of who their creator is and every Simulacrum guarding it will attest that yes, the creator is within (not to mention that the Simulacrum will remember where they came from), it is nearly impossible to actually trick Simulacrum into fighting their master.

Oh, and by the way, even if you can hijack an individual Simulacrum, the Creator is pumping out over a dozen of them every round (the only real limit on their production is the fact that Simulacrum requires a range of touch and the Simulacrum can only move so far away per round). So even if you do manage to hijack one, you're still not gaining an advantage, since in the time it took you to do so, 20 or 30 more were just created.

[Baveboi]

the Creator is pumping out over a dozen of them every round
FALSE. Each Symulacrum has ONE wish, they can't regain spells and thus can create only one Symulacrum at a time via Wish, making it a chain, not a pyramid scheme. One Symulacrum, the Original, will obey you, his Symulacrum will obey him, that obeys you, etc.


Your Simulacrums are not going to attempt to deceive each other, because they are all loyal to you. They cannot take actions that get in the way of your interests.
FALSE AGAIN. They are loyal to their creator, not YOU. Their creator are other Symulacrum of you. You just need one broken link and the entire chain falls apart. And that's a paddlin.

It's like that "a undead's undead is loyal to that undead, not the undead that undead is loyal to".


So even if you do manage to hijack one, you're still not gaining an advantage, since in the time it took you to do so, 20 or 30 more were just created.
STRIKE THREE AND YOU ARE OUT! It's a chain, so if you hijack only ONE Simulacrum you not only break that chain but everything under that chain is also yours now.

It's so damn easy to mess this thing up that it's not even funny. It's so frail, so out of whack, that it can only work on a universe perfectly balanced to make it fit. Everywhere else it will wobble and then fall, causing incredible damage when it does. And that, sir, is a paddlin.

[thereaper]

You aren't understanding how this works.

Each Simulacrum uses its one wish to make a Simulacrum of you, not itself. You have a 9th level slot, and so each Simulacrum that is created also has one (so long as you don't spend yours). Each Simulacrum also has instructions to order the Simulacrum it creates to be loyal to you (beyond itself, even), and to pass that instruction down the line.

I also don't appreciate your hostility. By RAW, it works, and there is nothing you can do to stop it short of not letting PCs learn the spells involved, not giving them access to the wealth required to make the initial casting work, or just having the group or DM say no.

That last one is the correct solution, by the way.

[Shining Wrath]

You aren't understanding how this works.

Each Simulacrum uses its one wish to make a Simulacrum of you, not itself. You have a 9th level slot, and so each Simulacrum that is created also has one (so long as you don't spend yours). Each Simulacrum also has instructions to order the Simulacrum it creates to be loyal to you (beyond itself, even), and to pass that instruction down the line.

I also don't appreciate your hostility. By RAW, it works, and there is nothing you can do to stop it short of not letting PCs learn the spells involved, not giving them access to the wealth required to make the initial casting work, or just having the group or DM say no.

That last one is the correct solution, by the way.

The DM will likely say no because having one player need 50 actions to complete their turn 'twould be tedious for the rest of the table. However, desperate times call for desperate measures, and there might be times that required a Wizard horde.

So assuming the DM allows this, what can go wrong?

First, you can't overrule the RAW of the spell by giving your simulacrum instructions to the contrary. The text reads: "The simulacrum is friendly to you and to creatures you designate. It obeys your spoken commands ...".

Stop right there. Simulacrum #1 can give every order it wants to Simulacrum #2, including the order "Obey Original Wizard, not me", and yet by RAW Simulacrum #2 obeys the spoken commands of Simulacrum #1. You can't give a Simulacrum an impossible order and have it be obeyed. If you tell them to cast Magic Missile as a 256th level spell, they may try, but they won't succeed. In the same way, it is inherent in the spell that Simulacrum #2 will always and for eternity obey Simulacrum #1, and only a Wish can possibly break the chain. A second Wish, not the one duplicating Simulacrum.

This means that you are now playing a high-stakes game of Telephone, because you're casting Wish spells, which are famously touchy about exact wording. And the longer the chain of "tell him to use Wish to cast Simulacrum on me", the greater the chance that something goes wrong, in possibly hilarious ways.

The same thing happens when you try to act. Each copy must pass instructions down the line, and while speaking is not normally considered to take any time, the DM is free to rule otherwise, especially when you're passing a message through 50 links. Shades of a commoner railgun!

[Cambrian]

Which is fine, since no-one would ever cast wish as anything but a spell duplicator in anything but the direst circumstances. The one incurring the 33% chance is your simulacrum, and that doesn't matter since it can't regain spells anyway.
If simulacrum is causing a negative play experience, then your DM has failed. Never seen such a big deal made about something that requires zero effort to fix.

Yeah, the wish/simulacrum thing is just an outright broken mistake that I refuse to believe was an intentional design decision. It'll get patched sooner rather than later.Do you need WotC to patch it for you? I don't see this being an issue for any group with a DM that isn't a slave to RAW.

[Shining Wrath]

If simulacrum is causing a negative play experience, then your DM has failed. Never seen such a big deal made about something that requires zero effort to fix.
Do you need WotC to patch it for you? I don't see this being an issue for any group with a DM that isn't a slave to RAW.

There might be situations where I'd allow it, though; it could be a hilarious desperation measure. I do consider the RAW to say that each fresh Simulacrum obeys the caster of the spell that created it, regardless of any orders to the contrary. So trying to coordinate efforts would be a big game of Telephone.

[thereaper]

The DM will likely say no because having one player need 50 actions to complete their turn 'twould be tedious for the rest of the table. However, desperate times call for desperate measures, and there might be times that required a Wizard horde.

So assuming the DM allows this, what can go wrong?

First, you can't overrule the RAW of the spell by giving your simulacrum instructions to the contrary. The text reads: "The simulacrum is friendly to you and to creatures you designate. It obeys your spoken commands ...".

Stop right there. Simulacrum #1 can give every order it wants to Simulacrum #2, including the order "Obey Original Wizard, not me", and yet by RAW Simulacrum #2 obeys the spoken commands of Simulacrum #1. You can't give a Simulacrum an impossible order and have it be obeyed. If you tell them to cast Magic Missile as a 256th level spell, they may try, but they won't succeed. In the same way, it is inherent in the spell that Simulacrum #2 will always and for eternity obey Simulacrum #1, and only a Wish can possibly break the chain. A second Wish, not the one duplicating Simulacrum.

This means that you are now playing a high-stakes game of Telephone, because you're casting Wish spells, which are famously touchy about exact wording. And the longer the chain of "tell him to use Wish to cast Simulacrum on me", the greater the chance that something goes wrong, in possibly hilarious ways.

The same thing happens when you try to act. Each copy must pass instructions down the line, and while speaking is not normally considered to take any time, the DM is free to rule otherwise, especially when you're passing a message through 50 links. Shades of a commoner railgun!

You are making the assumption that there is any need to give the Simulacrum orders in the first place.

There is no need for you to tell them what to do. They already know what you would want them to do, because they know everything you do at the time of casting.

The only way you could possibly upset things is to somehow get every Simulacrum in a line, hijack the first one in the chain, and have him order the other ones.

This is questionable at best, since there is nothing preventing you from having each Simulacrum order their creations to "obey the Original, regardless of any orders I give you to the contrary or any orders which would undermine this one". By RAW, there's no way the creating Simulacrum can undo that particular order short of wish, since any order they attempt to use to do so would go against the order.

More importantly, you are never going to get each Simulacrum in a nice little line next to their creations. A smart Creator would send every Simulacrum in a different direction from their creation.

Finally, there is nothing preventing the Creator from having every second Simulacrum commit suicide after having done their job (not only is it debatable whether they are to be considered alive at all, but given that their personality would still survive in the form of every other Simulacrum, they might not consider it death any more than we consider the loss of a couple of brain cells to be death; indeed, since they inherit your knowledge, how they interpret death and whether or not they are willing to sacrifice themselves to ensure the safety of the world's greatest army is entirely up to your character), which would make it outright impossible for the chain to be hijacked. And in any case, it's not like they can refuse.

If you want to try to shut down Simulacrum in-game, you're going to have to either use them yourself, bring in antimagic fields, or point out that they probably need to eat and age.

Of course, the problem with those is that the first one doesn't actually solve the problem, the second can be dealt with via the Simulacrums having nonmagical crossbows with silvered and cold iron bolts (just in case the person casting antimagic field is a Lycanthrope or whatever), and the third one only puts an upper limit on the number of Simulacrum (which will still turn out to be hundreds, unless they find a way around the limit through shenanigans like polymorph effects).

Like 3.5 before it, 5e RAW simply doesn't work and should be ignored. Heck, even 4e required at least two or three things to be banned (infinite damage generators, zone abuse, and charge cheese), and it was the only edition that came close to being balanced. The ban list for 5e just happens to have a couple dozen more things on it than 4e.

[Sartharina]

This is questionable at best, since there is nothing preventing you from having each Simulacrum order their creations to "obey the Original, regardless of any orders I give you to the contrary or any orders which would undermine this one". By RAW, there's no way the creating Simulacrum can undo that particular order short of wish, since any order they attempt to use to do so would go against the order.
Or that order is invalidated by the Simulacrum's compulsion to accept all orders from the creator - the order to disregard all orders from themselves applies until they give a new order, at which point the "Obey All Orders" command they are built with overrides it.

[thereaper]

Putting aside the fact that there is nothing to support the argument that some orders from the Simulacrum's creator take higher priority than others, it doesn't matter, because killing every second Simulacrum after they've created their replacement prevents that situation from coming up.

[Baveboi]

You all do realize this has canonically happened before right? And with a much worse spell than Symulacrum; with Clone. My point is this is not something that is impossible and should not be done - what I am saying is that it has no purposed besides being a complete cluster****. Can you jump in a volcano? Yes! That won't get you anything good, though.

Search for the story of Manshoon and Fzoul and how the world was populated with 25 Manshoons for a short period of time.

This is not a debate if it is possible or not. It is. But the debate is if it is dumb or not. And it is.

[thereaper]

I fail to see how having hundreds of copies of yourself that are loyal to you, will never betray you, and can slaughter any challenge in the game would be "bad" for you.

[Baveboi]

I fail to see how having hundreds of copies of yourself that are loyal to you, will never betray you, and can slaughter any challenge in the game would be "bad" for you.

You are assuming they are loyal to you, but ONE charm, ONE dominate, ONE order misinterpreted or messed with and the entire chain turns against you and against each other. That is not power, that is not security or stability. That is dangerous and mad and are the actions of dangerous madmen who think not of the consequences of their actions.

Again, check out this bloke named Manshoon, you will see what happens when hundreds of the same epic level wizard appear in the same place.

You are greedy, thereaper, you are greedy and mad, and your Symulacrum, being clones of you, would be equally greedy and mad. That path only leads to ruin and calamity.

[thereaper]

You haven't even read my posts, have you?

I already explained why that doesn't work. There is no "chain", because every second Simulacrum commits suicide after creating their replacement and ordering them to be loyal to and obey the Original (specifically to prevent someone from dominating one Simulacrum and having that one control others). They can't misinterpret orders because they are loyal to you and have your knowledge, so they interpret any order you give the same way you yourself would. It is literally impossible for the Manshoon scenario to occur (technically, even Clone can't do that, by the way). The only way to turn the Simulacrums against the Original would be to dominate 50 of them at once individually, since that's how many of them there would be in any given place that has them. Not only can nothing in the game do that, but anything that could do so would be equally capable of destroying the Original without them, so there is no actual downside to them.

And not only are Simulacrum chains not "mad", they are the sane, logical thing for a Lawful Good character to do who wants to help the world. It's no different from a hero looking for a magic sword so he can save more people, except now the hero can save more people than he ever thought possible, since he now has an army of heroes just like him.

Indeed, that's all this combo boils down to: You make an army of yourself. Because they are you, they will not betray you. And because they are you, they have all of your knowledge and power, so they can be trusted far more than someone who is not you. To claim that Simulacrum cannot be trusted is "mad", since the existence of armies and adventuring parties prove that people can trust things that are not them, and the self can always be trusted more than others.

[Cambrian]

There might be situations where I'd allow it, though; it could be a hilarious desperation measure. I do consider the RAW to say that each fresh Simulacrum obeys the caster of the spell that created it, regardless of any orders to the contrary. So trying to coordinate efforts would be a big game of Telephone.
Yeah but then the jerk just takes the keen mind feat so that the transmission is perfect... And yes, keen mind just became useful.

[Eslin]

You are assuming they are loyal to you, but ONE charm, ONE dominate, ONE order misinterpreted or messed with and the entire chain turns against you and against each other. That is not power, that is not security or stability. That is dangerous and mad and are the actions of dangerous madmen who think not of the consequences of their actions.

Again, check out this bloke named Manshoon, you will see what happens when hundreds of the same epic level wizard appear in the same place.

You are greedy, thereaper, you are greedy and mad, and your Symulacrum, being clones of you, would be equally greedy and mad. That path only leads to ruin and calamity.

Except that's not the case.

Gondolf the Beige, a level 20 neutral good wizard, decides to get off his ass and fix the world. He makes a simulacrum of himself, rests, and gives it this order: 'I don't really need to tell you this, since you have the same burning desire for justice and peace that I have, but I'm going to anyway just in case. You know me as you know yourself, and you know I would never order you to do an evil thing. Therefore from this moment on I order you to do as your heart desires and create more simulacra of the original me, giving them the same order I am giving you. Any order you receive from me or a simulacrum higher up the line may be ignored if you do not think it is in the interests of the greater good. This order supercedes any and all possible future orders, including orders that say they supercede this one.'

[Objulen]

I order you to do as your heart desires and create more simulacra of the original me,

Possibility of paradox implosion?

[thereaper]

If the Creator wants it, then so does the Simulacrum, because the Simulacrum inherits the personality of the Creator. So, no paradox there.

[Demonicattorney]

why are people talking about simulacrum chains? they are literally the dumbest thing I have ever read about. In order to even accomplish a simulacrum chain, you need a interpretation of the rules that violates the spirit of both Wish and Simulacrum. Its also boring and stupid, basically it fails both major rules of role-playing, its not A)Rule of Cool, or B) a reasonable interpretation of the game designers intent. It is an exploit, based on some poor wording. It is not necessary to accomplish any challenge or task other than ruining the game for all other players. If one of my players tried it, I would probably roll the 33% that you can never wish again, and I would point out that what he is actually doing is wishing for more Wishs, which is emulating a 9th level spell.

[Eslin]

why are people talking about simulacrum chains? they are literally the dumbest thing I have ever read about. In order to even accomplish a simulacrum chain, you need a interpretation of the rules that violates the spirit of both Wish and Simulacrum. Its also boring and stupid, basically it fails both major rules of role-playing, its not A)Rule of Cool, or B) a reasonable interpretation of the game designers intent. It is an exploit, based on some poor wording. It is not necessary to accomplish any challenge or task other than ruining the game for all other players. If one of my players tried it, I would probably roll the 33% that you can never wish again, and I would point out that what he is actually doing is wishing for more Wishs, which is emulating a 9th level spell.

The whole point of simulacrum and wish is to avoid that incredibly poor piece of design on wish.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

The whole point of the limitation on wish is to avoid wish factories, if you think wish factories are a good idea im not sure what to say.

[Eslin]

The whole point of the limitation on wish is to avoid wish factories, if you think wish factories are a good idea im not sure what to say.

Fine with limitations in wish, not fine with 'hur dur you can never cast it again'. Wish itself has limitations, there are less stupid costs that could have been imposed.

There have never been any wish factories that did not have some way of disregarding the cost of wish in any edition, why on earth would you think this limitation is stupid = wish factories?

[Demonicattorney]

The whole point of simulacrum and wish is to avoid that incredibly poor piece of design on wish.

That part of the design on Wish isn't poor, its actually cool. If offers characters a choice, you can do something incredibly powerful, but there is a chance that you will never be able to do it again, that is awesome. Using an exploit to gain more Wishs, without having to roll against that percentage is bad design.

[Eslin]

That part of the design on Wish isn't poor, its actually cool. If offers characters a choice, you can do something incredibly powerful, but there is a chance that you will never be able to do it again, that is awesome. Using an exploit to gain more Wishs, without having to roll against that percentage is bad design.

Other way around, bud. There are two halves to wish: Regularly usable 9th level spell that lets you imitate any other spell, and as Wish (though less powerful than it used to be). If you use it as the latter (and it's not incredibly powerful, it can't even make magical items or increase stats any more), you have a one third chance to lose both uses of the spell. Imagine if there were two spells, resurrection and fireball, and any time you used resurrection there was a 1/3 chance of never being able to cast both that and fireball.

There have been wish exploits in every edition, but this edition makes them mandatory because the cost to use wish is ridiculous. People are attached to their characters, permanently losing capabilities for impermanent benefits does not mesh well - you'll notice nothing of the reverse happens, there are no spells temporary costs that gain you permanent abilities.

[thereaper]

why are people talking about simulacrum chains? they are literally the dumbest thing I have ever read about. In order to even accomplish a simulacrum chain, you need a interpretation of the rules that violates the spirit of both Wish and Simulacrum. Its also boring and stupid, basically it fails both major rules of role-playing, its not A)Rule of Cool, or B) a reasonable interpretation of the game designers intent. It is an exploit, based on some poor wording. It is not necessary to accomplish any challenge or task other than ruining the game for all other players. If one of my players tried it, I would probably roll the 33% that you can never wish again, and I would point out that what he is actually doing is wishing for more Wishs, which is emulating a 9th level spell.

It's difficult to come up with a RAI interpretation of Simulacrum that isn't broken.

Let's say you use it to duplicate yourself. You gain more spell slots out of it than you used to cast it. Broken.

Let's say you use it to duplicate someone else in the party. The Warlock and Sorceror both have ways of getting around the "cannot regain spells" limitation (Arcanum spells don't use spell slots, and Sorcery Points create entirely new slots rather than "regaining" them). The Fighter's damage potential is unaffected. The Moon Druid doesn't care about his hit point total. The Rogue can sneak and disable traps just as well. The Barbarian can already reduce the damage he takes by half with rage. The Monk's per day abilities don't use spell slots. Even when you're not getting around the spell's limitations, you're getting access to other PCs' abilities and going outside of your role. Broken.

Let's say you incapacitate a monster and make a Simulacrum of them. Now you have access to the powers of a Beholder. Or a dragon. Or an Intellect Devourer. Or the Tarrasque. Or any number of other abilities that PCs shouldn't be allowed to have. Broken.

So, really, it's somewhat difficult to argue that Simulacrum chains aren't intended based on the logic that they're clearly broken, because Simulacrum itself is clearly broken. :smalltongue:

[rlc]

[QUOTE=thereaper;18245589][Creating Simulacra and wording your orders to them in such a way that] every second Simulacrum commits suicide after creating their replacement and ordering them to be loyal to and obey the Original (specifically to prevent someone from dominating one Simulacrum and having that one control others)...[is] the sane, logical thing for a Lawful Good character to do who wants to help the world.

yep, that's totally sane and lawful good. now, i'm not saying that simulacrum is an inherently bad spell, but i don't think i'd allow this type of abuse to go unchecked, especially with the suicide orders.

[Bubbrubb]

[QUOTE=thereaper;18245589]

yep, that's totally sane and lawful good. now, i'm not saying that simulacrum is an inherently bad spell, but i don't think i'd allow this type of abuse to go unchecked, especially with the suicide orders.

lol, I wonder how bizarre a world-perspective it takes to rationalize such behavior. You could argue that ordering another creature to commit suicide is in fact an incredibly evil act, regardless of your rationale for such orders. Furthermore, you probably have to be quite the narcissist to think that an endless procession of "yous" is what the world needs in order to make it a better place.

[Eslin]

lol, I wonder how bizarre a world-perspective it takes to rationalize such behavior. You could argue that ordering another creature to commit suicide is in fact an incredibly evil act, regardless of your rationale for such orders. Furthermore, you probably have to be quite the narcissist to think that an endless procession of "yous" is what the world needs in order to make it a better place.

So don't order them? They can commit suicide if they want to - after all, they're you and they share your motivations. If they don't kill themselves, obviously you weren't dedicated enough.

[rlc]

if your motivation involves them killing themselves, you're probably not smarter than a fifth grader lawful good.

[Eslin]

They are you. If you are dedicated enough to your concept of good to kill yourself in order to prevent possible hijacking of the chain of command, then so are they. If you aren't, then they aren't. What's that got to do with being lawful good?

[rlc]

i guess if you want to interpret it that way, then that's up to you, but i'd still probably punish simulacrum chains anyway.

[Bubbrubb]

They are you. If you are dedicated enough to your concept of good to kill yourself in order to prevent possible hijacking of the chain of command, then so are they. If you aren't, then they aren't. What's that got to do with being lawful good?

I think it is important to distinguish sacrificing your life to achieve a (presumably) good & worthwhile outcome, and blindly obeying a superior's orders to kill yourself. I think it's not too far a stretch to think that all but the least intelligent LG characters who also take an extreme & dogmatic interpretation of "LG ideals" will balk at the idea of mindless suicide; therefore, if the simulacra are you, and you wouldn't commit blind suicide, neither would they.

[Eslin]

I think it is important to distinguish sacrificing your life to achieve a (presumably) good & worthwhile outcome, and blindly obeying a superior's orders to kill yourself. I think it's not too far a stretch to think that all but the least intelligent LG characters who also take an extreme & dogmatic interpretation of "LG ideals" will balk at the idea of mindless suicide; therefore, if the simulacra are you, and you wouldn't commit blind suicide, neither would they.

Is there a particular reason you just repeated back what I just said to me in more words?

[Bubbrubb]

Because that distinction has everything to do with being LG, and reading the above posts being of LG alignment is the justification for the simulacrum/wish merry-go-round.

You asked what that difference had to do with being LG.

[Eslin]

Because that distinction has everything to do with being LG, and reading the above posts being of LG alignment is the justification for the simulacrum/wish merry-go-round.

You asked what that difference had to do with being LG.

I don't think it does, being willing to kill yourself for the possible future benefit of others is good but I don't see any interaction with the law or chaos end of things.

[Baveboi]

Eslin, Baalzebub has a special place for you in the bureaucratic circles of hell, I swear.

If one day you woke up to find out you are a clone and then your supposed master orders you to kill yourself because your job is done, would you really just slit your throat open? Now I am simply more curious than surprised, to be honest. I can't imagine a world where what you are saying isn't considered atrocious and cruel, not to say completely egotistical, self-serving and possibly and inherently evil, but hey! You just convinced yourself that that is the "only way that I alone can save the world and make everything right according to my own point of view".

That's exactly why you need groups of people. So they can tell you when you are being kind of a hitler. Imagine an army of you that agrees with you and has no individuality. What in that is good? I for the love of myself couldn't abide to such a thing happening close to me and I imagine no one else in a table would either.

"The ends justifies the means" got a whole new meaning to me, now.

[Eslin]

Eslin, Baalzebub has a special place for you in the bureaucratic circles of hell, I swear.

If one day you woke up to find out you are a clone and then your supposed master orders you to kill yourself because your job is done, would you really just slit your throat open? Now I am simply more curious than surprised, to be honest. I can't imagine a world where what you are saying isn't considered atrocious and cruel, not to say completely egotistical, self-serving and possibly and inherently evil, but hey! You just convinced yourself that that is the "only way that I alone can save the world and make everything right according to my own point of view".

That's exactly why you need groups of people. So they can tell you when you are being kind of a hitler. Imagine an army of you that agrees with you and has no individuality. What in that is good? I for the love of myself couldn't abide to such a thing happening close to me and I imagine no one else in a table would either.

"The ends justifies the means" got a whole new meaning to me, now.

The ends do justify the means if the end good outweighs the evil used, that's the entire point.

If the simulacrum's master ordered it to kill itself, it would have to, but please note that I never suggested doing so. I said not to bother with the orders, because if you'd kill yourself in order to advance the greater good then so would your simulacrum - you're not asking anything of them you wouldn't do yourself, and in fact wouldn't have to ask because it would do it of its own volition.

[Sartharina]

The ends do justify the means if the end good outweighs the evil used, that's the entire point.

If the simulacrum's master ordered it to kill itself, it would have to, but please note that I never suggested doing so. I said not to bother with the orders, because if you'd kill yourself in order to advance the greater good then so would your simulacrum - you're not asking anything of them you wouldn't do yourself, and in fact wouldn't have to ask because it would do it of its own volition.

I've never seen any Lawful Good Player Character kill themselves to advance the greater good.

[Eslin]

I've never seen any Lawful Good Player Character kill themselves to advance the greater good.

Ok? I've never seen a neutral evil character steal someone else's pancakes, doesn't mean they don't fit the description.

[Daishain]

I've never seen any Lawful Good Player Character kill themselves to advance the greater good.
It does happen, I've done so myself. Among the best endings to an adventuring career I've ever acted out, if perhaps not as glorious a demise as some others.

The circumstances in which the greater good is better served by directly eliminating a powerful agent of good are rare, but they do exist.

That stated, I do find this argument to be a bit pedantic. No self respecting DM would ever allow it at his table. Whether they fix it by errata, literal divine intervention, or even a party of good aligned adventurers sent to shut down the obvious BBEG trying to take over the world via clones, it isn't going to work.

[Eslin]

Which is why the DM needs to add different costs to wish so players don't have to resort to simulacrum chains in order to cast it.

[rlc]

The ends do justify the means if the end good outweighs the evil used, that's the entire point.

that is neither lawful, nor good. nor would anybody really agree with you if you tried doing that. that's the type of thing that starts wars and, in a fantasy setting, angers gods (at least, it would if i were in charge of what the gods thought).


Which is why the DM needs to add different costs to wish so players don't have to resort to simulacrum chains in order to cast it.

nah, the cost of wish is fine, but if you want to resort to simulacrum chains, then i will resort to a wide angle disintegration beam coming out of the sky.

[Demonicattorney]

I think the problem is that Eslin thinks that Wish should be used, for whatever, whenever, and that Simulacrum chains are just the easiest way to exploit Wish.

Wish isn't mean to be used like that, hence the cost. They assume Wish will be used a few times in an adventurers entire career, for the most desperate of situations, its not meant to be cast every single day.

[MaxWilson]

Which is why the DM needs to add different costs to wish so players don't have to resort to simulacrum chains in order to cast it.

I actually agree with this part. /Wish/ needs a rewrite. In AD&D 2nd edition, it aged you five years per casting, and IIRC the Complete Wizard's Handbook had something about how wishing for anything except healing or minor spell duplication imposed... I forget what, maybe it was a point of Con loss or something? You could raise permanent attributes with it or create permanent gold/gems, but each one aged you five years at a minimum, unless you had some way around that limitation like Magic Jar.

I'm not saying to go back to 2nd edition rules, just saying that there's precedent for exempting some of the listed Wish effects from the 33%-burnout rules. I would say wishing to get a brain back from an intellect devourer shouldn't risk burnout, because even though it doesn't duplicate an existing 8th level spell per se, it's not really more powerful than existing spells like Regenerate.

I think simulacrum is an awesome spell, and I really want to keep it in the game, but it doesn't play well with 5E's Concentration-centric magic system. Might have to be raised to 9th level.

[EugeneVoid]

Wish is DM-Fiat. Should be changed so minor uses (healing) doesn't risk losing it forever, which is kinda dumb.

[rlc]

so you just ignore the chance of losing it if all you're doing is getting a brain back. the huge cost is there to limit abuse. that's not abuse.

[themaque]

I did enjoy the combo meal version of Wish introduced in 3.5 and Pathfinder. Where it could imitate a spell and provide a longer list of "This is safe" uses for the spell. Then, if you're clever, desperate, or both you could try for something... amazing.

I think 5e could do with a few more value meal options (Healing, removing negative effects, or a few more small uses) and keep the all or nothing for the world changing stuff.

That's what I will do when I run it.

[MukkTB]

Hey guys I think thereaper has a point. What RAI thing are you supposed to do with simulacra that is balanced? Spell seems borked to me.

[Sartharina]

I'd protect Wish from being lost for using any ability that calls it out (such as an ID's brain-eating attack).

[Eslin]

I think the problem is that Eslin thinks that Wish should be used, for whatever, whenever, and that Simulacrum chains are just the easiest way to exploit Wish.

Wish isn't mean to be used like that, hence the cost. They assume Wish will be used a few times in an adventurers entire career, for the most desperate of situations, its not meant to be cast every single day.

And I think the problem is you hear what you want without actually listening to what I'm saying. Intellect devourer specifically calls out wish, and it's CR2. If one does, more probably do. And the spell imitation part is meant to be used every single day if the player wants, considering it has no cost to it, and that part is also removed if, say an intellect devourer eats the fighter's brain and the wizard wishes it back.

As a side note, the 'grant ten creatures resistance' part seems to have no duration attached to it. Considering wish is instantaneous, doesn't that make it permanent?

[thereaper]

First of all, I was the one who claimed that a Lawful Good character might have some of their Simulacrum commit suicide, not Eslin. Please do not misrepresent his position simply because he happens to acknowledge that Simulacrum chains are broken.


[QUOTE=thereaper;18245589]

yep, that's totally sane and lawful good. now, i'm not saying that simulacrum is an inherently bad spell, but i don't think i'd allow this type of abuse to go unchecked, especially with the suicide orders.

Who is to say they consider it death? Are they to even be considered alive?

If they are alive, then Simulacrum is almost certainly an [Evil] spell, since it creates slaves. If, however, they aren't considered alive (they don't learn, and they don't seem to have souls), or if (as is most likely the case) they are living beings who consider their sole purpose in life to be to serve you in any way you ask, then they would be happy to die for you. Indeed, aren't there people in real life who would be willing to die for the safety of others?

But let's assume that they are to be considered alive, and they don't want to die. Who is to say that they consider jumping into lava to be lethal to them? Their personality still lives on in every other Simulacrum (and you, for that matter). Indeed, as I believe I noted earlier, they might each consider "themselves" nothing more than a bunch of brain cells in a giant brain (with the Original being special only because they are necessary for the creation of more Simulacrum). To a chain of Simulacrum, the death of one could well be considered no more of a "death" than a person smacking their head into a low ceiling (which would probably cost more than just one brain cell, mind you). As far as a chain of Simulacrum are concerned, having one of them jump into a volcano is probably no more suicidal than a normal person playing Football or boxing (in fact, since the Simulacrum can always create more Simulacrum but the number of brain cells in a person is always decreasing, the Simulacrum would probably consider boxing to be more suicidal than a Simulacrum destroying itself).

Moreover, it ultimately doesn't matter whether destroying every second Simulacrum (you could technically just permanently polymorph them into some form that can't speak, if you really don't want to resort to that) is considered LG, because the alignment system is not a straightjacket. It is entirely possible to play a person who has an alignment of who-knows-what, but plays as a LG character who just happens to order every second Simulacrum to commit suicide (or doesn't even need to because they do it on their own, since the plan is theirs as much as it is his, and they know he would be willing to do it too if he happened to be one of the Simulacrum. There is nothing stopping you from playing a character like that.


Eslin, Baalzebub has a special place for you in the bureaucratic circles of hell, I swear.

If one day you woke up to find out you are a clone and then your supposed master orders you to kill yourself because your job is done, would you really just slit your throat open? Now I am simply more curious than surprised, to be honest. I can't imagine a world where what you are saying isn't considered atrocious and cruel, not to say completely egotistical, self-serving and possibly and inherently evil, but hey! You just convinced yourself that that is the "only way that I alone can save the world and make everything right according to my own point of view".

That's exactly why you need groups of people. So they can tell you when you are being kind of a hitler. Imagine an army of you that agrees with you and has no individuality. What in that is good? I for the love of myself couldn't abide to such a thing happening close to me and I imagine no one else in a table would either.

"The ends justifies the means" got a whole new meaning to me, now.

The situation you just described is completely different from the Simulacrum one.

The "master" isn't telling me to slit my throat, I am. He is me. He just happens to be the me that can regain spell slots. He doesn't even need to tell me to do it. I already knew the plan. Heck, it's my plan, because I am him. He's not telling me to do a damn thing, really. There's no need. I already chose to make this sacrifice back when I only had the one body. And I would be perfectly willing to sacrifice the original body, too, if it weren't for the fact that I need it to make more bodies. And I know this because he is me.

And I'm not really dying, because there's fifty other "me"s being created every six seconds. Oh, sure, I'm losing half of my brain cells, but the total number is always growing, so it's fine.

And you know what? I'm an adventurer. I vowed back when my village was destroyed and I was the only survivor that if I ever found myself in a situation where I had to choose between the safety of the world and my life, I would choose the safety of the world. So even if this "death" actually was death, I would be willing to make that sacrifice to ensure that the world's most powerful force for Good could never be corrupted. I wouldn't ask someone else to make that sacrifice, of course, but there's no need, because with this system in place, only I have to do so!

[EugeneVoid]

>mfw alignment arguments

[infinitetech]

in all reality, why was the spell even an issue, the biggest stopper of the spell has always been that the gm says no, besides, if you know what you are doing and how to combine/chain spells wish can still do almost anything risk free RAW with a couple feats taken, honestly they just need to stop trying to make this game into a non narrative based game

[rlc]

Hey guys I think thereaper has a point. What RAI thing are you supposed to do with simulacra that is balanced? Spell seems borked to me.

for one, you can create a simulacrum of a monster and use it to gain access to someplace you're not supposed to.
but anyway, the spell is supposed to be really strong. i don't even have a problem with creating a simulacrum of yourself, but if you start making chains, my setting's gods decide that you're an idiot manshoon wannabe who's going to be destroyed.


And I think the problem is you hear what you want without actually listening to what I'm saying. Intellect devourer specifically calls out wish, and it's CR2. If one does, more probably do. And the spell imitation part is meant to be used every single day if the player wants, considering it has no cost to it, and that part is also removed if, say an intellect devourer eats the fighter's brain and the wizard wishes it back.

As a side note, the 'grant ten creatures resistance' part seems to have no duration attached to it. Considering wish is instantaneous, doesn't that make it permanent?

so you ignore it for that use or something else like it. it's really not that hard.



Who is to say they consider it death? Are they to even be considered alive?

If they are alive, then Simulacrum is almost certainly an [Evil] spell, since it creates slaves. If, however, they aren't considered alive (they don't learn, and they don't seem to have souls), or if (as is most likely the case) they are living beings who consider their sole purpose in life to be to serve you in any way you ask, then they would be happy to die for you. Indeed, aren't there people in real life who would be willing to die for the safety of others?

But let's assume that they are to be considered alive, and they don't want to die. Who is to say that they consider jumping into lava to be lethal to them? Their personality still lives on in every other Simulacrum (and you, for that matter). Indeed, as I believe I noted earlier, they might each consider "themselves" nothing more than a bunch of brain cells in a giant brain (with the Original being special only because they are necessary for the creation of more Simulacrum). To a chain of Simulacrum, the death of one could well be considered no more of a "death" than a person smacking their head into a low ceiling (which would probably cost more than just one brain cell, mind you). As far as a chain of Simulacrum are concerned, having one of them jump into a volcano is probably no more suicidal than a normal person playing Football or boxing (in fact, since the Simulacrum can always create more Simulacrum but the number of brain cells in a person is always decreasing, the Simulacrum would probably consider boxing to be more suicidal than a Simulacrum destroying itself).

Moreover, it ultimately doesn't matter whether destroying every second Simulacrum (you could technically just permanently polymorph them into some form that can't speak, if you really don't want to resort to that) is considered LG, because the alignment system is not a straightjacket. It is entirely possible to play a person who has an alignment of who-knows-what, but plays as a LG character who just happens to order every second Simulacrum to commit suicide (or doesn't even need to because they do it on their own, since the plan is theirs as much as it is his, and they know he would be willing to do it too if he happened to be one of the Simulacrum. There is nothing stopping you from playing a character like that.


all i'm seeing here is circular logic. cult-like circular logic, at that. but, whatever. i guess that in your crazy, mixed up world, wanting people to kill themselves can be lawful good because you're not wearing a straight jacket, or something. i don't know, that always seems to be the favorite catch phrase of people who have already lost a debate.
anyway, in my world, you and every single one of your clones would be destroyed.

[Bubbrubb]

for one, you can create a simulacrum of a monster and use it to gain access to someplace you're not supposed to.
but anyway, the spell is supposed to be really strong. i don't even have a problem with creating a simulacrum of yourself, but if you start making chains, my setting's gods decide that you're an idiot manshoon wannabe who's going to be destroyed.



so you ignore it for that use or something else like it. it's really not that hard.



all i'm seeing here is circular logic. cult-like circular logic, at that. but, whatever. i guess that in your crazy, mixed up world, wanting people to kill themselves can be lawful good because you're not wearing a straight jacket, or something. i don't know, that always seems to be the favorite catch phrase of people who have already lost a debate.
anyway, in my world, you and every single one of your clones would be destroyed.

Wish there was a like button. No pun intended.

[Eslin]

for one, you can create a simulacrum of a monster and use it to gain access to someplace you're not supposed to.
but anyway, the spell is supposed to be really strong. i don't even have a problem with creating a simulacrum of yourself, but if you start making chains, my setting's gods decide that you're an idiot manshoon wannabe who's going to be destroyed.



so you ignore it for that use or something else like it. it's really not that hard.



all i'm seeing here is circular logic. cult-like circular logic, at that. but, whatever. i guess that in your crazy, mixed up world, wanting people to kill themselves can be lawful good because you're not wearing a straight jacket, or something. i don't know, that always seems to be the favorite catch phrase of people who have already lost a debate.
anyway, in my world, you and every single one of your clones would be destroyed.

How is that wanting people to kill themselves? In his scenario, which makes perfect sense, the close are of a good person who kill themselves of necessity to advance the greater good. There are no orders, just the clone deciding that that is what is best.

And your answer to something being completely legal is that they die if they try it. All right, it's your campaign, but for fairness's sake you better have a list at the start of the game of all the rules legal things your players will be arbitrarily killed for doing.

[rlc]

How is that wanting people to kill themselves? In his scenario, which makes perfect sense, the close are of a good person who kill themselves of necessity to advance the greater good. There are no orders, just the clone deciding that that is what is best.
specifically, this:


It is entirely possible to play a person who has an alignment of who-knows-what, but plays as a LG character who just happens to order every second Simulacrum to commit suicide (or doesn't even need to because they do it on their own, since the plan is theirs as much as it is his, and they know he would be willing to do it too if he happened to be one of the Simulacrum. There is nothing stopping you from playing a character like that.

ordering your same-thought clones to kill themselves and planning it that way without explicitly telling them to do it are the same thing, regardless of how much you pretend they're not.


And your answer to something being completely legal is that they die if they try it. All right, it's your campaign, but for fairness's sake you better have a list at the start of the game of all the rules legal things your players will be arbitrarily killed for doing.

my list at the start of the game will consist of one item: don't be annoying and try to metagame. even if it's technically "rules legal." that's hardly arbitrary at all. i'll even give you a warning.

[Jane_Doe]

Personally, I'd prefer something along the lines of "One per year" or "Once per decade" or somesuch for uses of Wish not duplicating spells. Enough for desperate circumstances, big enough cost that you'll seriously think before using it, and most importantly, not permanent, so that you'll not be left wondering whether you'll regret casting this spell 100* sessions from now.

*Sure, not many characters capable of casting Wish will still be being played 100 sessions later, and the DM would probably arrange to have Wish restored if so. I still don't like the idea of irrevocable ability loss if you're unlucky on a roll, though - dice hate me.

[Objulen]

Simulacrum on its own isn't a problem. It's powerful, but it takes 12 hours to cast and 1500 gold, and using it on someone else requires access to them during this time. The issue is that it let's get around the Wish's RAI and Simulacrum's limit RAI, which requires houserules to fix.

[Eslin]

specifically, this:


ordering your same-thought clones to kill themselves and planning it that way without explicitly telling them to do it are the same thing, regardless of how much you pretend they're not.



my list at the start of the game will consist of one item: don't be annoying and try to metagame. even if it's technically "rules legal." that's hardly arbitrary at all. i'll even give you a warning.

That's not metagaming, that's combining two abilities in a fairly obvious way. And again, you don't need to order your clones to do anything - they're you, if you're dedicated enough then so are they. If your clones won't kill themselves on their own that means you won't, and yes if at that point you order them to, that's evil as hell.

[rlc]

a quick google search returns this:
Metagaming is any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game.

so yeah, i'd say that making a million copies of yourself kind of fits under two out of three of those listed items. i don't care if you think it's "obvious" or not, because it's pretty obvious to me that you're doing it to be disruptive and the fact that it's canonically happened before just gives even more of a reason for it to be punished in-universe.

and this is getting old.

[Eslin]

Let me differentiate two problems:
Metagaming is a problem a lot of the time. Metagaming is where you check the book for the monster's weaknesses, have your character pursue goals that it has no reason to know exist or otherwise use how the game's rules are set up or the way the game is played to enhance your character.

Breaking the game is when your character makes the game a significant degree less fun for other players. The two can coincide, but for example from the other thread becoming a werebear can break the game by making other melee characters feel useless, but that doesn't make it metagaming.

Now, metagaming is a bit of a grey area - combat reflexes, improved trip and weapon finesse are out of game concepts, as is using them to make an attack of opportunity, but combining them to stop a creature when it tries to pass you is not metagaming because they're assumed to represent something that makes sense to a character.

Chaining wish and simulacrum is game breaking, which is a problem considering 5e was supposed to not have game breakers, but it is not metagaming. Combining the two makes perfect sense for a wizard of that level, it doesn't require any out of character knowledge.

[rlc]

yeah, whatever you want to call it isn't really important, i call it metagaming, you call it game breaking, someone else might call it chocolate pudding. the point is that it's annoying and anybody who tries it should be told to knock it off.

[Eslin]

yeah, whatever you want to call it isn't really important, i call it metagaming, you call it game breaking, someone else might call it chocolate pudding. the point is that it's annoying and anybody who tries it should be told to knock it off.

Except as I just made clear, it has nothing to do with metagaming.

So, we've about concluded this thread -

Can wish copy other classes' spell lists? Yes
Is the cost of any other use of wish reasonable? No
Can simulacrum allow risk-free wishes? Yes
Can simulacrum and wish be combined for infinite clones? Yes

The problem is the interaction between the second and third points - the cost of using wish is incredibly harsh, far worse than 5000xp or a year of your life. Therefore people resort to the third, which breaks the game. There is no real middle ground.

[rlc]

it has nothing to do with your definition of metagaming. seriously, dude, what you call it isn't important. i call it an annoying use of an otherwise okay spell.

[Eslin]

It doesn't have anything to do with your definition of metagaming either. It's not an annoying use of an otherwise okay spell - simulacrum has no non-broken uses, and non-spell imitating wish has far too harsh a penalty to be usable. Neither of them are okay spells.

[Bubbrubb]

{Scrubbed}

[Eslin]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

What's that got to do with anything? What I'm concerned with is having a game where the players can do their best without having to worry about breaking things and without having to worry about being arbitrarily shut down. Wish and simulacrum have a very simple problem - wish's cost is far too harsh, and obvious solution to that breaks the game.

[rlc]

It doesn't have anything to do with your definition of metagaming either. It's not an annoying use of an otherwise okay spell - simulacrum has no non-broken uses, and non-spell imitating wish has far too harsh a penalty to be usable. Neither of them are okay spells.

i already pointed out what it had to do with the (not just my) definition. and i already pointed out another use of simulacrum. and i already pointed out that i think the penalty is okay, provided you handwave it when necessary.
so yeah. i'm sure that neither of us will ever have to worry about the other person meddling with their vision of what these spells should do, but circular logic and weak arguments aren't going to change my stance.


{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

honestly, i just don't really have anything better to do right now because i'm off work for columbus day.

[Eslin]

i already pointed out what it had to do with the (not just my) definition. and i already pointed out another use of simulacrum. and i already pointed out that i think the penalty is okay, provided you handwave it when necessary.
so yeah. i'm sure that neither of us will ever have to worry about the other person meddling with their vision of what these spells should do, but circular logic and weak arguments aren't going to change my stance.


It works fine as long as you sometimes arbitrarily decide it doesn't exist does not work fine. That's like claiming the intellect devourer is balanced so long as sometime you just decide to negate its abilities.

There are so many other penalties that make sense. You want wish castable daily as a spell imitator or rarely as an actual Wish, and for the latter you want it to have a hefty cost to balance out its power. At present the cost is ridiculous, on top of a (completely fine) temporary penalty you have a 1/3 chance of never being able to use either use again. Nobody likes the idea of a irreversible loss to their character for a temporary benefit - years of your life, 5000xp, the inability to cast spells for the next month, 10 damage to every stat, pretty much anything would leave a better taste in the mouth of the player. So people naturally seek to circumvent that, and the natural conclusion they reach breaks the game. There should be a middle ground between the two, and there isn't.

[Shining Wrath]

The Simulacrum is you down to the last detail, except for some piddling HP and the inability to learn new tricks.

Which means that it would feel as much horror, remorse, sadness, and fear about dying as you would.

And when "the greater good" means "there can be no threats to my authority over my Simulacra", you're really having someone kill themselves (suffering horror, remorse, sadness, fear, pain, etc) so that your personal power can be safeguarded.

Every DM gets to decide what's evil / good / lawful / chaotic at their table, and how people act in D&D games is not really a reflection of their personal ethos, so I'm not gonna judge anyone for how they feel about this.

In my mind, though, ordering every other Simulacrum to kill themselves counts as big-time evil AND big-time Lawful; you are being a serious control freak causing innocents to die so that your orders will be obeyed forever.

That means, given the level of the spells being thrown around to do this, you just gained unwelcome attention from deities of 5 of the 9 alignments. That knock on your roof is a Solar who'd like to have some words with you about this. No, you won't win the battle - he knows which one is the real you, as the root of the word "Divination" ought to make clear, and he's been buffed by 2N gods, where N is the number of simulacra you had originally.

[Eslin]

The Simulacrum is you down to the last detail, except for some piddling HP and the inability to learn new tricks.

Which means that it would feel as much horror, remorse, sadness, and fear about dying as you would.

And when "the greater good" means "there can be no threats to my authority over my Simulacra", you're really having someone kill themselves (suffering horror, remorse, sadness, fear, pain, etc) so that your personal power can be safeguarded.

Every DM gets to decide what's evil / good / lawful / chaotic at their table, and how people act in D&D games is not really a reflection of their personal ethos, so I'm not gonna judge anyone for how they feel about this.

In my mind, though, ordering every other Simulacrum to kill themselves counts as big-time evil AND big-time Lawful; you are being a serious control freak causing innocents to die so that your orders will be obeyed forever.

That means, given the level of the spells being thrown around to do this, you just gained unwelcome attention from deities of 5 of the 9 alignments. That knock on your roof is a Solar who'd like to have some words with you about this. No, you won't win the battle - he knows which one is the real you, as the root of the word "Divination" ought to make clear, and he's been buffed by 2N gods, where N is the number of simulacra you had originally.

Again, you don't need to order them to do something. If you would, they would. If you wouldn't, they wouldn't, and then you have to order them, and then unless you have an absolutely fantastic reason for doing so your alignment switches straight to evil.

[rlc]

It works fine as long as you sometimes arbitrarily decide it doesn't exist does not work fine. That's like claiming the intellect devourer is balanced so long as sometime you just decide to negate its abilities.

There are so many other penalties that make sense. You want wish castable daily as a spell imitator or rarely as an actual Wish, and for the latter you want it to have a hefty cost to balance out its power. At present the cost is ridiculous, on top of a (completely fine) temporary penalty you have a 1/3 chance of never being able to use either use again. Nobody likes the idea of a irreversible loss to their character for a temporary benefit - years of your life, 5000xp, the inability to cast spells for the next month, 10 damage to every stat, pretty much anything would leave a better taste in the mouth of the player. So people naturally seek to circumvent that, and the natural conclusion they reach breaks the game. There should be a middle ground between the two, and there isn't.

so in other words, you want to do something arbitrary to change what the rules say so that i can't do something arbitrary to change what the rules say?


Again, you don't need to order them to do something. If you would, they would. If you wouldn't, they wouldn't, and then you have to order them, and then unless you have an absolutely fantastic reason for doing so your alignment switches straight to evil.

why would they need to kill themselves in the first place? they're you, so they know if you're really you or if somebody's pretending to be you.

[Objulen]

It doesn't have anything to do with your definition of metagaming either. It's not an annoying use of an otherwise okay spell - simulacrum has no non-broken uses, and non-spell imitating wish has far too harsh a penalty to be usable. Neither of them are okay spells.

There are non-broken uses: an expensive power bump when facing a siege (ala Helm's Deep) or other threat you have time to plan, a utility back-up for useful spells that are great to have when you need them but otherwise not that great, getting useful information and a double agent by capturing an enemy and making a copy of them.

[Eslin]

What do I want to do that changes what the rules say?


There are non-broken uses: an expensive power bump when facing a siege (ala Helm's Deep) or other threat you have time to plan, a utility back-up for useful spells that are great to have when you need them but otherwise not that great, getting useful information and a double agent by capturing an enemy and making a copy of them.

1500gp is quite low for high levels - those are still broken uses, since they can double your power or more with a seventh level spell.

[rlc]

i'll just requote the same quote.


It works fine as long as you sometimes arbitrarily decide it doesn't exist does not work fine. That's like claiming the intellect devourer is balanced so long as sometime you just decide to negate its abilities.

There are so many other penalties that make sense. You want wish castable daily as a spell imitator or rarely as an actual Wish, and for the latter you want it to have a hefty cost to balance out its power. At present the cost is ridiculous, on top of a (completely fine) temporary penalty you have a 1/3 chance of never being able to use either use again. Nobody likes the idea of a irreversible loss to their character for a temporary benefit - years of your life, 5000xp, the inability to cast spells for the next month, 10 damage to every stat, pretty much anything would leave a better taste in the mouth of the player. So people naturally seek to circumvent that, and the natural conclusion they reach breaks the game. There should be a middle ground between the two, and there isn't.

that's what you want to do to change what the rules say.

[Eslin]

i'll just requote the same quote.



that's what you want to do to change what the rules say.

Nothing there mentions a change to what the rules say at all, other than lamenting the lack of a balanced middle ground.

[rlc]

...and you've been saying this whole thread that you want to change said cost. i mean, the cost shouldn't even come up in most cases that don't warrant it in the first place. there are other spells that brings back lost brains, bring back dead people and give you such and so forth. if you really want to risk never again being able to use a level 9 spell on doing what another spell can already do, then that's up to you.

[Eslin]

...and you've been saying this whole thread that you want to change said cost. i mean, the cost shouldn't even come up in most cases that don't warrant it in the first place. there are other spells that brings back lost brains, bring back dead people and give you such and so forth. if you really want to risk never again being able to use a level 9 spell on doing what another spell can already do, then that's up to you.

Actually there aren't, the intellect devourer specifically calls out wish. Again, what was wrong with the costs from previous editions? They stopped people casting wish for fun as well, but they weren't so prohibitive nobody ever wanted to use it. Instead wish is effectively two different spells now, and using one has a one in three chance of permanently costing you the use of the other.

[Objulen]

What do I want to do that changes what the rules say?

1500gp is quite low for high levels - those are still broken uses, since they can double your power or more with a seventh level spell.

Maybe? It's hard to say without the dmg. Even at those levels,1500 gold is a decent chunk of change.

It's also worth noting that the Simulacrum is fragile, and can be one shot with Dispel Magic. So the likelihood of getting your money's worth diminishes rapidly as it engages in combat.

Still, it may be overpowered, not counting the broken combos. However, I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt until I see it in action.

[Shining Wrath]

Again, you don't need to order them to do something. If you would, they would. If you wouldn't, they wouldn't, and then you have to order them, and then unless you have an absolutely fantastic reason for doing so your alignment switches straight to evil.

And since self-preservation is probably the single strongest instinct, under no circumstances will any sane person kill themselves merely to protect against the possibility of someone else losing power. It will never happen. Suicide is a last resort for people with no other choices, and your copies have other choices.

Also, how does this work out in the game? You tell the DM that the even numbered copies just killed themselves, he asks why, and you say "Well isn't it obvious"? It is NOT obvious that the Simulacra will spontaneously decide that preserving your personal power is worth dying for.

Does the 256th Simulacrum even know he's even numbered?

This happens because you give an order. Seconds later, you die at the hands of the agents of angry gods.

[Eslin]

And since self-preservation is probably the single strongest instinct, under no circumstances will any sane person kill themselves merely to protect against the possibility of someone else losing power. It will never happen. Suicide is a last resort for people with no other choices, and your copies have other choices.

Also, how does this work out in the game? You tell the DM that the even numbered copies just killed themselves, he asks why, and you say "Well isn't it obvious"? It is NOT obvious that the Simulacra will spontaneously decide that preserving your personal power is worth dying for.

Does the 256th Simulacrum even know he's even numbered?

This happens because you give an order. Seconds later, you die at the hands of the agents of angry gods.

As the DM, I'd rule the characters didn't commit suicide unless the character was incredibly strongly good and high willed (or potentially suicidal for other reasons). I absolutely can see a character deciding to commit suicide to ensure the chain of command isn't hijacked, but that character would need to be incredibly dedicated to the greater good. I'd have needed to see that character willing to risk death without an immediate emotional bond, one that consistently acted in the interests of the greater good, letting their own individual wants and even individual acts of good be sublimated in favour of doing the best thing overall. If the player was playing a character like that and said every x simulacrum ended its own life to ensure the safety of the chain of command, then as a DM I'd accept that.

If the player was playing anything less than that, I'd rule that her clone was unable to bring itself to commit suicide, and if she ordered it to I would rule her alignment dropped straight to evil.

[rlc]

Actually there aren't, the intellect devourer specifically calls out wish.

for one, greater restoration does it (http://community.wizards.com/forum/product-and-general-dd-discussions/threads/4142301), which is a 5th level spell.

[Eslin]

for one, greater restoration does it (http://community.wizards.com/forum/product-and-general-dd-discussions/threads/4142301), which is a 5th level spell.

Great, because in an edition about simplicity a DM doesn't just need a monster manual, he should have to go search out some guy's tweets on the internet for relevant information to run a CR2 creature.

[rlc]

nah, the spell's description says that it undoes a reduction to a target's ability scores, so it makes sense that it would also get rid of what caused the reduction in the first place.
i'm not sure why the tweet was even needed, but i guess you can consider it errata.

[Eslin]

The intellect devourer eats the targets brain. There is nothing in greater restoration to indicate that it can restore lost bodyparts. If it could be used to magically give the fighter a new brain, that should have been included in the IDs description.

[archaeo]

Ignoring the weird conversation about simulacra suicide rates,


You want wish castable daily as a spell imitator or rarely as an actual Wish, and for the latter you want it to have a hefty cost to balance out its power. At present the cost is ridiculous, on top of a (completely fine) temporary penalty you have a 1/3 chance of never being able to use either use again. Nobody likes the idea of a irreversible loss to their character for a temporary benefit - years of your life, 5000xp, the inability to cast spells for the next month, 10 damage to every stat, pretty much anything would leave a better taste in the mouth of the player. So people naturally seek to circumvent that, and the natural conclusion they reach breaks the game. There should be a middle ground between the two, and there isn't.

Why should there be a middle ground? The two grounds you've mentioned should be more than enough ground for one spell.

To me, it's excellent game design. The "safe" wish gives you the ultimate in flexibility; with the hundreds of spells that qualify, you can almost be assured that something you want to do can be accomplished. But, you might want to save that 9th level spell slot, because you can also use wish to do way more than any other spell, should the need arise. With both tactical and strategic considerations, wish creates a lot of opportunities for cool situations and great plots.

If some middle ground is desired, then it isn't natural to "seek to circumvent that" via simulacrum, if only because it does way more than circumvent the problem, it demolishes it and leaves the game's balance behind in the wreckage. Just house rule in some different risks for using wish. Problem solved. At most tables, though, the RAW wish will probably do very nicely.

[MaxWilson]

for one, greater restoration does it (http://community.wizards.com/forum/product-and-general-dd-discussions/threads/4142301), which is a 5th level spell.

No, Greater Restoration restores the Int loss from the psychic attack, just as the spell description for Greater Restoration says.

Greater Restoration does not restore your brain after it's eaten.

[rlc]

The intellect devourer eats the targets brain. There is nothing in greater restoration to indicate that it can restore lost bodyparts. If it could be used to magically give the fighter a new brain, that should have been included in the IDs description.


No, Greater Restoration restores the Int loss from the psychic attack, just as the spell description for Greater Restoration says.

Greater Restoration does not restore your brain after it's eaten.

so how do you get rid of the reduction without a brain?

[Eslin]

Ignoring the weird conversation about simulacra suicide rates,



Why should there be a middle ground? The two grounds you've mentioned should be more than enough ground for one spell.

To me, it's excellent game design. The "safe" wish gives you the ultimate in flexibility; with the hundreds of spells that qualify, you can almost be assured that something you want to do can be accomplished. But, you might want to save that 9th level spell slot, because you can also use wish to do way more than any other spell, should the need arise. With both tactical and strategic considerations, wish creates a lot of opportunities for cool situations and great plots.

If some middle ground is desired, then it isn't natural to "seek to circumvent that" via simulacrum, if only because it does way more than circumvent the problem, it demolishes it and leaves the game's balance behind in the wreckage. Just house rule in some different risks for using wish. Problem solved. At most tables, though, the RAW wish will probably do very nicely.

None of that gets around the fact that the cost is incredibly stupid, and no player is willing to pay it. And again, simulacrum is not the middle ground. The middle ground is the ground between never being able to use the spell again and breaking the game to get around that. The middle ground would be the spell making your character count as 5 levels lower, increasing by 1 a week, or losing several thousand experience, or costing you a hundred thousand gold, or cancelling your favourite tv show.

[archaeo]

None of that gets around the fact that the cost is incredibly stupid, and no player is willing to pay it.

I don't really see a massive outcry online about how underpowered wish is, dude. I suspect that lots of players and DMs think it's a nerf, but a reasonable and cool nerf that makes using an "unsafe" wish exciting and plot-affecting.


And again, simulacrum is not the middle ground. The middle ground is the ground between never being able to use the spell again and breaking the game to get around that. The middle ground would be the spell making your character count as 5 levels lower, increasing by 1 a week, or losing several thousand experience, or costing you a hundred thousand gold, or cancelling your favourite tv show.

See, all of those costs are kind of uninteresting costs. Really messing with player level or player XP has the potential to cause every wish to cost you a lot of real-life time doing the paperwork of de-leveling. Spending gold is tough, since how do you peg the worth of a wish that can do anything? Knocking the caster out or taking away all casting is equally obnoxious, since now your PCs are down a player.

You're free to dislike the RAW 5e wish, but I fail to see how it's objectively bad game design.

[Bubbrubb]

None of that gets around the fact that the cost is incredibly stupid, and no player is willing to pay it.


What makes that cost "stupid"? Even the "cast any spell" feature of Wish is incredibly powerful. What is so unreasonable about giving the caster world-changing capabilities in exchange for a chance of relinquishing those capabilities in the future?

[Eslin]

I don't really see a massive outcry online about how underpowered wish is, dude. I suspect that lots of players and DMs think it's a nerf, but a reasonable and cool nerf that makes using an "unsafe" wish exciting and plot-affecting.



See, all of those costs are kind of uninteresting costs. Really messing with player level or player XP has the potential to cause every wish to cost you a lot of real-life time doing the paperwork of de-leveling. Spending gold is tough, since how do you peg the worth of a wish that can do anything? Knocking the caster out or taking away all casting is equally obnoxious, since now your PCs are down a player.

You're free to dislike the RAW 5e wish, but I fail to see how it's objectively bad game design.

It's objectively bad because its nature automatically drives players in search of a way to not have to pay it. If wish is necessary once it'll be necessary twice, and players won't want to give up the ability to cast both that and their best ninth level spell - it makes people uneasy in the way even an incredibly harsh penalty wouldn't. The inability to cast it again is bad design because it drives any player who reads it straight towards simulacrum, and the simulacrum method has no limits to it.

[rlc]

or, maybe not everybody's first thought is "how do i get around this?"
and since when does one person's subjective opinion of something being bad make it objectively bad? you're exaggerating for effect here.

[Bubbrubb]

It's objectively bad because its nature automatically drives players in search of a way to not have to pay it. If wish is necessary once it'll be necessary twice, and players won't want to give up the ability to cast both that and their best ninth level spell - it makes people uneasy in the way even an incredibly harsh penalty wouldn't. The inability to cast it again is bad design because it drives any player who reads it straight towards simulacrum, and the simulacrum method has no limits to it.

Without the restriction it encourages players to lean on Wish to solve all their problems or, depending on your viewpoint, abuse the tremendous potential power of the spell.

In the former case, boring, uncreative play is encouraged (and non-wish casting characters are potentially marginalized), and in the latter, being able to cast wish sets you faaaaar apart power-wise from other creatures.

[Eslin]

In general, no, a lot of players take costs at face value. In this specific instance, when the cost is so extreme (for comparison, say using find steed gave you a 1/3 chance of never being able to find steed and any smite spell again), people are automatically driven to find a way not to pay it.


Without the restriction it encourages players to lean on Wish to solve all their problems or, depending on your viewpoint, abuse the tremendous potential power of the spell.

In the former case, boring, uncreative play is encouraged (and non-wish casting characters are potentially marginalized), and in the latter, being able to cast wish sets you faaaaar apart power-wise from other creatures.

Kind of why I said, many many times and this is getting kind of annoying because people keep misrepresenting it or not listening at all, there should be a middle ground. Other editions had different costs - it cost 5000xp in 3.5 and people weren't exactly lining up to chain cast it, but they were more willing to do so in an emergency. They still tried to find ways around it, because 5000xp was very expensive, but it wasn't so ridiculous that the average player immediately looked for another solution, just the munchkins.

[Bubbrubb]

In general, no, a lot of players take costs at face value. In this specific instance, when the cost is so extreme (for comparison, say using find steed gave you a 1/3 chance of never being able to find steed and any smite spell again), people are automatically driven to find a way not to pay it.

To compare Wish, Smite, and Find Steed (along with their potential consequences of casting, real or imagined) makes for a poor analogy for obvious reasons.

It is your opinion that people will automatically find a way around it; previous posts reveal that other people feel the potential cost of the spell is appropriate given it's potential power.

[Eslin]

To compare Wish, Smite, and Find Steed (along with their potential consequences of casting, real or imagined) makes for a poor analogy for obvious reasons.

It is your opinion that people will automatically find a way around it; previous posts reveal that other people feel the potential cost of the spell is appropriate given it's potential power.

Completely incorrect. Find steed and smite spells have a lot less power than wish, so you're losing a lot less power from never being able to cast them again. The cost to wish is the same as its power - however much power you're getting from wish, your price is the removal of future potential for that power. You can name any two spells in the game and give them the wish/Wish dynamic and the relative cost stays the same. It's a bad mechanic.

[Bubbrubb]

Of course if that is how you read it, 1/1 = 1296/1296 = 1. But 1 =/= 1296. The relative power of find steed/smite (and the loss of their power in your analogy) is infinitesimal compared to wish, and thus makes that analogy unfitting.

That is to say, there is a reason (whether you think it good or no) that wish has those potential consequences and the spells from your analogy do not.

[Eslin]

Of course if that is how you read it, 1/1 = 1296/1296 = 1. But 1 =/= 1296. The relative power of find steed/smite (and the loss of their power in your analogy) is infinitesimal compared to wish, and thus makes that analogy unfitting.

That is to say, there is a reason (whether you think it good or no) that wish has those potential consequences and the spells from your analogy do not.

You're right, I don't think it's a good reason. A spell's cost should not be the ability to cast that spell ever again unless the system is designed around it, and 5e most definitely is not.

[Shining Wrath]

The intellect devourer eats the targets brain. There is nothing in greater restoration to indicate that it can restore lost bodyparts. If it could be used to magically give the fighter a new brain, that should have been included in the IDs description.

Resurrection, though, very explicitly restores missing body parts, and it's Bard / Cleric 7. So you can use Wish without risk to fix a lost brain, assuming that having no brain is fatal. Admittedly I've seen some Barbarians where that is debatable .... :smallbiggrin:

And Druid arguably can using Restoration, which is 7th level for them, since the spell says it replaces severed body parts - is a devoured part severed?

Since Sorcerers also get Wish, at a minimum Bards, Clerics, Sorcerers, and Wizards can handle a lost brain without using Wish for any purpose other than duplicating the 7th level spell Resurrection, and Druids if you allow Restoration. That leaves Warlocks as the only full caster that can't put your brain back, which might open the debate back up as to whether or not Warlocks really deserve to be styled "full caster".

[Segev]

Away from book at the moment: can Resurrection be cast as a ritual?

[Kornaki]

If a player of mine tried to argue that "my force of will and dedication to the task is sufficient for half of the simulacra to commit suicide", I would allow it and start with his character. Then he could roll a new one while his simulacra chain does whatever the f it's supposed to do.

[Yagyujubei]

I don't think it does, being willing to kill yourself for the possible future benefit of others is good but I don't see any interaction with the law or chaos end of things.

if I were the DM I'd make you roll a straight up chance die that had a 50% possibility of killing your character to prove your "resolve" is strong enough to be imparted to your simulacrums. "Talk is cheap, prove you're willing to die"

[infinitetech]

how about this, wish spells no longer place in a spell slot, they also no longer "burn out", instead they work like they did in OD&D with exp cost and all, but they can be used only once per day (though you can stack effects of wishes by casting as a sustained ritual(cant stop casting during X consecutive days where X is the number of wishes you use) and each cast of wish take a total spell slot value of 20, aka you can pay 2lvl9 and 1lvl2, 1lvl8 1lvl7 and 1lvl5, or any other combo of slots, also you get -x on all rolls after you use wish where x is the number of wishes and the -x becomes one less each day after the casting, if a wish is made again the negs stack with the first teir, and remember D&D rules, if your role is negative on a check even basic tasks like walking could kill you, multiple people can contribute wishes, but they all take the TOTAL expended wishes effect, also for lesser wish the same thing happens but it isnt as powerful and the negative effect is 2x as strong

this makes it so that it isnt a yes or no or a nerf this or even a will they regret this, but more of a you will have a downside from this but you can eventually get whatever your heart desires... be careful what you wish for

[Pex]

Without the restriction it encourages players to lean on Wish to solve all their problems or, depending on your viewpoint, abuse the tremendous potential power of the spell.

In the former case, boring, uncreative play is encouraged (and non-wish casting characters are potentially marginalized), and in the latter, being able to cast wish sets you faaaaar apart power-wise from other creatures.

No. The problem is not having a restriction. The problem is the specificity of what the restriction is. As personal opinion I think Wish should be allowed more safe things to do than just duplicate spells, as 3E/Pathfinder does, but the punishment for the unsafe as is tells the player never, ever do this but we just can't get rid of this in the book because it's always been there.

It is bad game design to punish a character for doing what he's supposed to be doing. If the rules absolutely feel the need to metaphorically gobsmack a character for doing an ability, then the rules should instead not have the ability exist in the first place and do something else.

[archaeo]

In general, no, a lot of players take costs at face value. In this specific instance, when the cost is so extreme (for comparison, say using find steed gave you a 1/3 chance of never being able to find steed and any smite spell again), people are automatically driven to find a way not to pay it...

Kind of why I said, many many times and this is getting kind of annoying because people keep misrepresenting it or not listening at all, there should be a middle ground. Other editions had different costs - it cost 5000xp in 3.5 and people weren't exactly lining up to chain cast it, but they were more willing to do so in an emergency. They still tried to find ways around it, because 5000xp was very expensive, but it wasn't so ridiculous that the average player immediately looked for another solution, just the munchkins.


No. The problem is not having a restriction. The problem is the specificity of what the restriction is. As personal opinion I think Wish should be allowed more safe things to do than just duplicate spells, as 3E/Pathfinder does, but the punishment for the unsafe as is tells the player never, ever do this but we just can't get rid of this in the book because it's always been there.

It is bad game design to punish a character for doing what he's supposed to be doing. If the rules absolutely feel the need to metaphorically gobsmack a character for doing an ability, then the rules should instead not have the ability exist in the first place and do something else.

Emphasis mine.

Eslin, I think it's incorrect to believe that some huge proportion of the player base is going to be spending all their time searching for a way to break wish. The presupposition is that players will feel that the spell is too limiting, and as the thread title points out, it gives you access to virtually every spell in the game. I simply don't think most players will regard themselves as straightjacketed by the terms of the spell.

Edited to add: it's also true that we've already found the one way to "abuse" wish, it involves what everyone acknowledges is a mistake in simulacrum, and after accounting for that, the system just doesn't give you anything to use to avoid that cost. After the spell gets errata'd, there just won't be a way to avoid the cost short of houseruling wish, which you're totally free to do even though it just serves to buff classes that really don't need the buffs.

Pex, this isn't the game punishing the player for doing what they're supposed to do. Wizards aren't supposed to be getting everything they want once a day. 5e's Wish preserves a lot of the spell's power (any 8th level spell or below! from any list!) in exchange for giving you a very risky, very powerful way to solve literally anything once. It's not like, some shining example of perfect game design, but bad it ain't.

Think of wish as two spells at once; one gives you the ability to cast virtually every spell 1/day, and one gives you the ability to totally rewrite reality at a great cost. I don't see how that's not a win on every axis. It preserves the power you'd expect out of wish while creating this great and dramatic moment every time you cast it outside the "safe" scope. I can understand disliking this, but as I said, it's definitely not bad game design just because you think it's a high price to pay. It's a high price because it's interesting and fun to create high costs for powerful effects.

[infinitetech]

on my earlier suggestion, also an option is that on the cool down neg thing, while that is active you cant cast another wish

also that spell slot amount may be high

tailor to likes

[TheDeadlyShoe]

It's objectively bad because its nature automatically drives players in search of a way to not have to pay it.

This is meaningless. There's no price in any game system that players won't seek to avoid. It's axiomatic to being a price. In any case, there's only one to not pay it.

[Eslin]

This is meaningless. There's no price in any game system that players won't seek to avoid. It's axiomatic to being a price. In any case, there's only one to not pay it.

It's absolutely not meaningless. A lot of pcs will pay 10g to bribe the guard to get into the palace, a lot less will pay 20,000g. The higher the cost for what you're buying with it, the more likely it is a non-munchkin will seek to circumvent it.

In the case of wish, the cost is so ridiculous that a lot of players who would accept paying even 5000xp will attempt to find an alternative.

[Demonicattorney]

It's absolutely not meaningless. A lot of pcs will pay 10g to bribe the guard to get into the palace, a lot less will pay 20,000g. The higher the cost for what you're buying with it, the more likely it is a non-munchkin will seek to circumvent it.

In the case of wish, the cost is so ridiculous that a lot of players who would accept paying even 5000xp will attempt to find an alternative.

Have you ever considered that maybe player's shouldn't be trying to circumvent the cost? It is narratively cooler if a Wizard gets a "final wish" to save the day, rather than some amorphous godlike ability all the time. Instead of thinking about power, thinking about your games as a story, things will make more sense, and you will have a better time.

[Eslin]

Have you ever considered that maybe player's shouldn't be trying to circumvent the cost? It is narratively cooler if a Wizard gets a "final wish" to save the day, rather than some amorphous godlike ability all the time. Instead of thinking about power, thinking about your games as a story, things will make more sense, and you will have a better time.

Please stop implying that I don't think of my games as a story, it's actually quite insulting. I'm pretty much perma-DM, storytelling is the only aspect of it I really enjoy. Wish was never some amorphous godlike ability, I've never seen it chain cast in any edition without rules abuse. Other editions had large costs too and they meant people didn't use wish as an everyday tool, this edition didn't need to cost you the ability to use two really good spells as the penalty.

[thereaper]

for one, you can create a simulacrum of a monster and use it to gain access to someplace you're not supposed to.
but anyway, the spell is supposed to be really strong. i don't even have a problem with creating a simulacrum of yourself, but if you start making chains, my setting's gods decide that you're an idiot manshoon wannabe who's going to be destroyed.



so you ignore it for that use or something else like it. it's really not that hard.



all i'm seeing here is circular logic. cult-like circular logic, at that. but, whatever. i guess that in your crazy, mixed up world, wanting people to kill themselves can be lawful good because you're not wearing a straight jacket, or something. i don't know, that always seems to be the favorite catch phrase of people who have already lost a debate.
anyway, in my world, you and every single one of your clones would be destroyed.

Creating a Simulacrum of yourself is overpowered, because you're gaining more spell slots than you needed to cast it (unless 750 gp rubies are so ridiculously rare in your world that it's not worthwhile, in which case the spell still has no reason to exist). Using it to copy other people for a double agent is not only clearly not intended (the limitation on spell slots but nothing else demonstrates that they never thought anyone would use it on a non-caster), but is unnecessary when things like charms exist (unless the monster is immune to it; but those monsters are immune to charms specifically to prevent nonsense like PCs being able to use it as a double agent).

There is almost no RAI way to use Simulacrum that doesn't break the game.

You "lost the debate" the moment you brought what would happen in your setting into a discussion of RAW.

You know what? Let's assume for the moment that you're right. Let's assume that Simulacrum are people, even though there is evidence suggesting otherwise (they don't appear to have souls and they are only "partially real"). Let's assume that to prevent the Simulacrum chain from being hijacked requires that every second Simulacrum die (it can be avoided through other ways, and even ignoring those, it would only be necessary if you take the interpretation that a Simulacrum ordered to do something regardless of future orders to the contrary can have that order taken back, an idea that only works if some orders take priority over others and has no support in the rules whatsoever). Let's further pretend that a Simulacrum choosing to sacrifice itself for the good of the world is somehow evil (which would mean that a hero who knowingly sacrifices his life to save the king would also be evil, since they are exactly the same thing). Let us further assume that a Simulacrum dying is actually death, since it could easily be argued that as long as anyone with the Simulacrum's personality is alive, none of them have died (they don't have souls and can't learn, after all, so personality at time of creation is really the only thing that makes them who they are, and there are countless others who fit that bill).

If even one of those things is not true, then it's entirely possible for a LG Simulacrum factory to work.

But let's take the unlikely (and, in all honesty, unsupported, since at the very least choosing to sacrifice oneself for the good of the world is obviously not evil) assumption that none of those things is true, and the Simulacrum factory is evil.

Guess what?

It changes nothing.

The Simulacrum have the personality of the Original and (either naturally or by orders) are loyal to the Original. If the Original is willing to sacrifice himself for The Plan, then so are his Simulacrum. They are literally incapable of turning against him. Hell, even if he isn't willing to sacrifice himself, he could order his Simulacrum to become willing (if we're going to assume an evil Original, that is).

And you know what else? No one can stop him with anything short of Divine Intervention, Wish, or another Simulacrum chain. Heck, with a sufficient number of Simulacrum, even the Gods wouldn't be able to stop him. And his head-start in Simulacrum production (unless someone else is doing the exact same thing as he, which just starts the problem all over again) means he can prevent anyone else from starting a chain. Heck, with infinite wishes, he could even have one of the Simulacrum make a wish that pre-emptively counters other wishes! The DM could arbitrarily decide to have that somehow screw them over, but the DM could already do that anyway by saying "rocks fall, everyone dies".

So, ultimately, the Simulacrum factory can only be stopped by DM fiat.

And that proves it's broken.

(which, in case you forgot, is what I've actually been arguing this whole time)

[Cambrian]

Who set the expectation that there wouldn't be some sort of contrived combination of spell effects that couldn't be abused?

The rulings not rules concept is that writing absolute comprehensive rules makes them unnecessarily complex and often leads to it's own problems. So when it comes up house rule it to what works for your game.

[infinitetech]

two things, what happens if you just kill the caster? i haven't read the full rules yet...

and the other: the game is only slightly worse than real life, there are things we could do with tech like this, see matrix, but also you could irl make an unstoppable power bomb by combining matter and antimatter in a perfect rhythm to create a new genesis wave, causing ALL existence to be unmade then remade, why would a game have anything less??

[thereaper]

Hypothetically, if you killed the Original, the other Simulacrum would no longer be able to wish other Simulacrum into existence that could continue wishing other Simulacrum into existence. In effect, the chain ends (they could make a few more copies of themselves with 7th level slots through the old-fashioned way, but the next generation wouldn't get that slot back, so once they're all out of 7th and 8th level slots, that's it; no more Simulacrum).

The problem is that you'll never be able to actually do this, because by the time anyone notices, there will be literally hundreds of Simulacrum between you and the chained Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansions and/or demiplanes that the Original hangs out in. And new Simulacrum will be created faster than you can destroy them. In effect, all you're really doing is temporarily reducing the number of mouths they have to feed (which is the only real limit to their numbers).

This, of course, is putting aside the question of how you're ever going to kill more than one or two Simulacrum in the first place when there are enough of them in front of you that they could literally spam cantrips and slaughter you twice over in a single round (you could try a Lycanthrope with an antimagic field, I suppose, but they would have light crossbows with silver bolts and whatnot for just such an occasion).

Actually, now that I think about it, what happens when a Simulacrum casts Antimagic Field? Obviously, since they're magical, they have to wink out of existence. So does that leave a free-floating (seemingly empty) antimagic field for the next hour that cannot be eliminated? But then again, if the person doesn't exist any more, does that count as incapacitated or killed, and cause the spell to end? But that doesn't seem right, either, because the spell "moves with you", so if the Simulacrum winks out of existence, then so too should the antimagic field, which should then cause the Simulacrum to no longer be suppressed and return, logically leading to an infinite loop of the Simulacrum and antimagic field sort-of-but-not-really existing, right?

Did I just stumble onto the secret of how vestiges work? :smalleek:

Or maybe the multiverse simply ends from the sheer stupidity of a creature made of magic casting Antimagic Field. :smallamused:

The really funny thing is that a careful reading of Antimagic Field will reveal that any spell or magical effect on a creature in an antimagic field is suppressed.

Antimagic Field, by definition, is a spell that is on a creature in an antimagic field.

Later on, the spell description states that different antimagic fields don't cancel each other out, but it is curiously silent on the issue of the same antimagic field.

Therefore,

By RAW, Antimagic Field suppresses itself.

:smallbiggrin:

[rlc]

So, ultimately, the Simulacrum factory can only be stopped by DM fiat.

And that proves it's broken.

(which, in case you forgot, is what I've actually been arguing this whole time)

Except, we agree that it requires DM fiat. We're not arguing about that. I said that, yeah, I would use said DM fiat and you complained about it, so that doesn't even make sense.
The actual debate started because you said that telling your clones to kill themselves was lawful good and I said that it wasn't. Then you made up all sorts of exceptions and I said that those exceptions don't make a difference.

[Shining Wrath]

Except, we agree that it requires DM fiat. We're not arguing about that. I said that, yeah, I would use said DM fiat and you complained about it, so that doesn't even make sense.
The actual debate started because you said that telling your clones to kill themselves was lawful good and I said that it wasn't. Then you made up all sorts of exceptions and I said that those exceptions don't make a difference.

I think the essence of this argument is semantic.

Does "broken" mean "this spell can be abused unless the DM steps in"? Or does "broken" mean "this spell renders 5e D&D a fundamentally flawed game"?

Simulacrum meets definition the first, but not definition the second, as I think thereaper will agree that someone trying to use this spell to create numerous copies of themselves is likely to provoke a response from a DM who doesn't want to run a table covered with pennies or toothpicks or whatever would be used to represent all those damned simulacra.

Whether or not it's appropriate to use Simulacrum to get yourself a Wish without the 1/3 chance of losing Wish forever I leave to the discretion of each DM. It's clever, but it's also abusable, and where exactly the line is drawn will vary from table to table.

If you're Lawful Neutral that's a horrible situation, if you're Chaotic Neutral that's how things ought to be, and if you're Neutral Good you just want everyone to get along :smallbiggrin:

[infinitetech]

quick question, do the simulcra count as the same race as you and the same lvl?

[infinitetech]

if race i have a problem in a homebrew...

[Daishain]

quick question, do the simulcra count as the same race as you and the same lvl?
Uh, technically, a simulacrum's race would be nonliving construct. It may look and act like you but in the end its just a magicked up Frosty the Snowman.

[infinitetech]

okay, very good

[MaxWilson]

Have you ever considered that maybe player's shouldn't be trying to circumvent the cost? It is narratively cooler if a Wizard gets a "final wish" to save the day, rather than some amorphous godlike ability all the time. Instead of thinking about power, thinking about your games as a story, things will make more sense, and you will have a better time.

Some people play D&D as an infinite game instead of a finite game. "Final wish" is only entertaining in finite games where the goal is to "win" by defeating the (narrative element). The goal of an infinite game is to keep playing, so "Final wish" is less attractive because it permanently gimps you.

It's sort of the same reason people will avoid fighter dipping where it would be advantageous, solely for the purpose of not missing the level 20 capstone in their main class. Even if they never reach level 20 in play, they don't like permanently losing the option.

[Valraukar]

Some people play D&D as an infinite game instead of a finite game. "Final wish" is only entertaining in finite games where the goal is to "win" by defeating the (narrative element). The goal of an infinite game is to keep playing, so "Final wish" is less attractive because it permanently gimps you.

It's sort of the same reason people will avoid fighter dipping where it would be advantageous, solely for the purpose of not missing the level 20 capstone in their main class. Even if they never reach level 20 in play, they don't like permanently losing the option.

So the solution is don't cast Wish frivolously, (and as a DM don't put your players in situations that demand the use of wish such that they are forced into using it in ways that provoke rolling for the penalty). Seriously, there are myriad other potent spells to provide solutions to the problems Wish might be used to solve, so why lean on it unnecessarily? Also, any DM that demands a player make that roll for wishing another player's brain back post-ID is a tyrant, a fool, or both.

[Shining Wrath]

So the solution is don't cast Wish frivolously, (and as a DM don't put your players in situations that demand the use of wish such that they are forced into using it in ways that provoke rolling for the penalty). Seriously, there are myriad other potent spells to provide solutions to the problems Wish might be used to solve, so why lean on it unnecessarily? Also, any DM that demands a player make that roll for wishing another player's brain back post-ID is a tyrant, a fool, or both.

Especially because the 7th level spell Resurrection explicitly restores missing body parts. Use Wish in the no-risk way to cast Resurrection if you have no cleric or bard handy.

Bards, Clerics, Sorcerers, and Wizards can fix a missing brain. Traditionally, Wizards can do this by presenting you with a Diploma, which is simpler than a Wish.

[MaxWilson]

So the solution is don't cast Wish frivolously, (and as a DM don't put your players in situations that demand the use of wish such that they are forced into using it in ways that provoke rolling for the penalty). Seriously, there are myriad other potent spells to provide solutions to the problems Wish might be used to solve, so why lean on it unnecessarily? Also, any DM that demands a player make that roll for wishing another player's brain back post-ID is a tyrant, a fool, or both.

While I don't disagree with you, Valraukar, I was responding to a suggestion that losing access to Wish permanently is better and more fun than not losing it, for dramatic/story reasons. I just pointed out that this is true only under certain conditions.

[Valraukar]

Just to be clear my last comment was also made in a similar fashion, that is to say I was responding to the thread in general rather than your particular comments which simply happened to provoke the thoughts I typed out.

[Eslin]

So the solution is don't cast Wish frivolously, (and as a DM don't put your players in situations that demand the use of wish such that they are forced into using it in ways that provoke rolling for the penalty). Seriously, there are myriad other potent spells to provide solutions to the problems Wish might be used to solve, so why lean on it unnecessarily? Also, any DM that demands a player make that roll for wishing another player's brain back post-ID is a tyrant, a fool, or both.

Which makes that broken. ID explicitly calls out wish to fix the magical brain removal, if a lesser spell was usable it would call that out too. The most relevant part here is the one I bolded - wish explicitly tells you any use other than spell imitation incurs the penalty, the penalty is not balanced if a DM using it the way it is written is a fool or a tyrant.

[Valraukar]

Tyrant if they obstinately insist on such a mindlessly rigid interpretation of the RAW.

Fool if they lack the judgement/stones to tweak or houserule the contingencies for that check.

The penalty is fine, it is the interpretation of the contingencies for incurring that penalty (and a potential one at that, so many of these posts speak of the penalty as a sure thing which 33% certainly is not.) where these issues arise.

[Eslin]

Tyrant if they obstinately insist on such a mindlessly rigid interpretation of the RAW.

Fool if they lack the judgement/stones to tweak or houserule the contingencies for that check.

The penalty is fine, it is the interpretation of the contingencies for incurring that penalty (and a potential one at that, so many of these posts speak of the penalty as a sure thing which 33% certainly is not.) where these issues arise.

Except most of the people in this thread are arguing it's fine as-is.

[rlc]

Which makes that broken. ID explicitly calls out wish to fix the magical brain removal, if a lesser spell was usable it would call that out too. The most relevant part here is the one I bolded - wish explicitly tells you any use other than spell imitation incurs the penalty, the penalty is not balanced if a DM using it the way it is written is a fool or a tyrant.

this is a terrible argument. it doesn't need to explicitly call anything out; wish is given as an example of a spell that fixes it, though there are others, and anyone who doesn't read it that way is the fool or tyrant you seem to be afraid of.

[Sir Jeff]

Eslin,

First off, sorry people are being so aggressive towards you. D&D is srs bsns.

I think that, on the whole, you're right in that this is a serious RAW problem, and that it demands the attention of the developers. I know this was a couple of pages back, but where I think your example may not be sound is in the fact that you are not going to kill yourself, and so your clones, who are autonomous and have your perspective and willingness, are not either. Saying that "I would be willing to kill myself if it would ensure the chain is not broken, but since you're the simulucrum you will have to, not me," does not imply the willingness to die. I would, in fact, argue that until a character commits suicide, they cannot know whether or not they have the capacity to do so for the greater good.

This is, I think, a minor problem though. The limitation on wish is not acceptable, and the ID is a very good example of just how such a design is not adequate. But your point and the point of those who are so adamantly arguing against you are not incompatible. Ric, you're right that it's unlikely that any DM will allow infinite cloning of a character, or for a CR2 creature to kill a character (to the level that a possibly final use of wish is required) because of one bad roll. So there are solutions beyond the rules that are both pragmatic and acceptable. But, and I believe that this is at the heart of Eslin's argument, the rules should not require actions beyond their authority to fix their shortcomings. It is both simpler and better for all involved if the rules themselves reflect those pragmatic and acceptable solutions.

[archaeo]

The limitation on wish is not acceptable

I still don't see any credible explanation for this assertion.

[Eslin]

Eslin,

First off, sorry people are being so aggressive towards you. D&D is srs bsns.

I think that, on the whole, you're right in that this is a serious RAW problem, and that it demands the attention of the developers. I know this was a couple of pages back, but where I think your example may not be sound is in the fact that you are not going to kill yourself, and so your clones, who are autonomous and have your perspective and willingness, are not either. Saying that "I would be willing to kill myself if it would ensure the chain is not broken, but since you're the simulucrum you will have to, not me," does not imply the willingness to die. I would, in fact, argue that until a character commits suicide, they cannot know whether or not they have the capacity to do so for the greater good.

This is, I think, a minor problem though. The limitation on wish is not acceptable, and the ID is a very good example of just how such a design is not adequate. But your point and the point of those who are so adamantly arguing against you are not incompatible. Ric, you're right that it's unlikely that any DM will allow infinite cloning of a character, or for a CR2 creature to kill a character (to the level that a possibly final use of wish is required) because of one bad roll. So there are solutions beyond the rules that are both pragmatic and acceptable. But, and I believe that this is at the heart of Eslin's argument, the rules should not require actions beyond their authority to fix their shortcomings. It is both simpler and better for all involved if the rules themselves reflect those pragmatic and acceptable solutions.

Regarding suicide, I said much the same thing earlier:
As the DM, I'd rule the characters didn't commit suicide unless the character was incredibly strongly good and high willed (or potentially suicidal for other reasons). I absolutely can see a character deciding to commit suicide to ensure the chain of command isn't hijacked, but that character would need to be incredibly dedicated to the greater good. I'd have needed to see that character willing to risk death without an immediate emotional bond, one that consistently acted in the interests of the greater good, letting their own individual wants and even individual acts of good be sublimated in favour of doing the best thing overall. If the player was playing a character like that and said every x simulacrum ended its own life to ensure the safety of the chain of command, then as a DM I'd accept that.

If the player was playing anything less than that, I'd rule that her clone was unable to bring itself to commit suicide, and if she ordered it to I would rule her alignment dropped straight to evil.
And yes, you've about summarized my argument. Any given rule or monster or class feature can be fixed or can have their problems worked around (see all the people claiming the Tarrasque was fine because they'd make sure it appeared in an enclosed space with no warning and let it act more intelligent than it actually is), that doesn't mean they're working well. If people really like the 1/3 chance of it never being able to be cast again, I'd add a clause that states you can spend several days and 8000 gold on a ritual to let you become able to cast it again.


I still don't see any credible explanation for this assertion.

The explanation is no spell should have itself be the cost, as that always scales. We want costs to be related to usefulness - meteor swarm has a higher cost than fireball, because it's more useful. If the ability to cast Wish is an acceptable cost for casting Wish, it follows that that should be appropriate for any spell, because X/X will always be 1. If a 1/3 chance of never being able to cast wish again is balanced, then so is a 1/3 chance of fireball never being castable again if you cast fireball, and so for raise dead and so for forcecage.

People do not like permanently losing abilities. People will hesitate to add a level of fighter to their paladin build because it means they can't have their level 20 paladin ability even when the campaign's never going to go there, and to add to that there is the glaring addition of the fact that this did not need to happen. Other editions had different costs, less ridiculously stupid ones, and people still didn't take the ability lightly. When the cost was 5000xp people weren't exactly rushing to cost themselves that amount over and over, we already know for a fact that a viable alternative exists and you're still insisting that permanently eliminating abilities from someone's character sheet is acceptable.

[Chen]

The explanation is no spell should have itself be the cost, as that always scales. We want costs to be related to usefulness - meteor swarm has a higher cost than fireball, because it's more useful. If the ability to cast Wish is an acceptable cost for casting Wish, it follows that that should be appropriate for any spell, because X/X will always be 1. If a 1/3 chance of never being able to cast wish again is balanced, then so is a 1/3 chance of fireball never being castable again if you cast fireball, and so for raise dead and so for forcecage.

People do not like permanently losing abilities. People will hesitate to add a level of fighter to their paladin build because it means they can't have their level 20 paladin ability even when the campaign's never going to go there, and to add to that there is the glaring addition of the fact that this did not need to happen. Other editions had different costs, less ridiculously stupid ones, and people still didn't take the ability lightly. When the cost was 5000xp people weren't exactly rushing to cost themselves that amount over and over, we already know for a fact that a viable alternative exists and you're still insisting that permanently eliminating abilities from someone's character sheet is acceptable.

Wizards are already incredibly powerful. They have spells that can solve any number of situations. I see no problem adding an extreme cost to Wish. There is now, always a desperate last chance option to burn it to do something crazy. It's just not the normal use for that power. The normal use is replicating ANY other spell of 8th level or lower. That alone would be more than powerful enough as a 9th level spell. They just added an extra bit to it with an extra cost.

I mean imagine they added an extra part to fireball that let you add 10d6 to its damage at the cost of 2d4 permanent hit points. It doesn't make the existing spell any worse. It added flexibility to it. You have the same thing with Wish. Sure just replicating spells is weaker than its previous incarnation (though its 8th level regardless of spell source now which is a bit of a buff), but a lot of spells are weaker than their previous editions. Think about it that way. You have an extra ability tacked onto the base Wish spell that has a very high risk associated with it. If you don't want to risk losing the ability to cast this spell, don't use that bonus. Done.

[Eslin]

Wizards are already incredibly powerful. They have spells that can solve any number of situations. I see no problem adding an extreme cost to Wish. There is now, always a desperate last chance option to burn it to do something crazy. It's just not the normal use for that power. The normal use is replicating ANY other spell of 8th level or lower. That alone would be more than powerful enough as a 9th level spell. They just added an extra bit to it with an extra cost.

I mean imagine they added an extra part to fireball that let you add 10d6 to its damage at the cost of 2d4 permanent hit points. It doesn't make the existing spell any worse. It added flexibility to it. You have the same thing with Wish. Sure just replicating spells is weaker than its previous incarnation (though its 8th level regardless of spell source now which is a bit of a buff), but a lot of spells are weaker than their previous editions. Think about it that way. You have an extra ability tacked onto the base Wish spell that has a very high risk associated with it. If you don't want to risk losing the ability to cast this spell, don't use that bonus. Done.

A: This isn't 3.5. 'X caster is already incredibly powerful' is no longer a balancing factor, or shouldn't be. And this crap isn't an existing capability tacked onto wish, wish has always had these abilities (in fact it's currently the least powerful it's ever been). There was already an extreme cost to wish in every other edition, and they worked fine. Again, why on earth would you replace penalties you know for a fact work with ones that actively remove abilities from someone's character sheet?

[archaeo]

The explanation is no spell should have itself be the cost, as that always scales. We want costs to be related to usefulness - meteor swarm has a higher cost than fireball, because it's more useful. If the ability to cast Wish is an acceptable cost for casting Wish, it follows that that should be appropriate for any spell, because X/X will always be 1. If a 1/3 chance of never being able to cast wish again is balanced, then so is a 1/3 chance of fireball never being castable again if you cast fireball, and so for raise dead and so for forcecage.

For a 9th level spell slot and one of your memorization slots, you can cast any other spell of 8th level or below, which encompasses a really enormous range of possibilities. That's a pretty low cost, since it opens up the entire PHB spell list, sans a dozen spells, to a single caster.

Costing you the spell wish itself only happens when you need to go beyond any other spell of 8th level or below. By pegging it at that price, the designers are making a clear statement of intent: you should save big wishes for big situations. It's a dramatic, interesting price to pay for a big effect.


People do not like permanently losing abilities. People will hesitate to add a level of fighter to their paladin build because it means they can't have their level 20 paladin ability even when the campaign's never going to go there, and to add to that there is the glaring addition of the fact that this did not need to happen. Other editions had different costs, less ridiculously stupid ones, and people still didn't take the ability lightly. When the cost was 5000xp people weren't exactly rushing to cost themselves that amount over and over, we already know for a fact that a viable alternative exists and you're still insisting that permanently eliminating abilities from someone's character sheet is acceptable.

People don't like their characters dying, people don't like their characters losing, people don't like magic items getting stolen, etc., etc. Any good game will force the player to confront dangerous situations in which they have a chance to lose something.

The problem with wish is finding a good price for "you can do anything." XP or gold prices really don't work; both are things you just accumulate more of, often at a higher rate after you can just cast wish to do anything. Knocking out the caster is equally obnoxious, since you don't really want to create a situation where a player has to sit out for a session because they cast an optimal spell. Both of these costs also fail to actually do anything about abusive wish use, beyond putting a really lengthy recharge mechanic on the spell.

The current solution seems like a good one to me. You get safe wishes, meaning that memorizing it doesn't have to just be a hole in your spell list reserved for emergencies, and you get unsafe wishes that can save the party from virtually any situation. The high price of the latter can be handled quickly at the table, and it serves as an actually stern cost instead of a trivially bypassed one.

All of which isn't to say that your opinion is invalid, of course, but saying it isn't "acceptable" is bizarre. It strikes me as a totally reasonable design that accomplishes its goals nicely.

[Eslin]

For a 9th level spell slot and one of your memorization slots, you can cast any other spell of 8th level or below, which encompasses a really enormous range of possibilities. That's a pretty low cost, since it opens up the entire PHB spell list, sans a dozen spells, to a single caster.

Costing you the spell wish itself only happens when you need to go beyond any other spell of 8th level or below. By pegging it at that price, the designers are making a clear statement of intent: you should save big wishes for big situations. It's a dramatic, interesting price to pay for a big effect.
Not sure why I need to keep repeating this: It's not like people were firing off wish on a whim in previous editions, we know perfectly well the cost was sufficient back then. And wish isn't actually that powerful in comparison to other 9th level spells - sure, it's insanely versatile, but there is a larger gulf between 9th and 8th level spells now than there has ever been. 9th is full of once a day super powers, meteor storm and foresight gate and true resurrection.




People don't like their characters dying, people don't like their characters losing, people don't like magic items getting stolen, etc., etc. Any good game will force the player to confront dangerous situations in which they have a chance to lose something.

The problem with wish is finding a good price for "you can do anything." XP or gold prices really don't work; both are things you just accumulate more of, often at a higher rate after you can just cast wish to do anything. Knocking out the caster is equally obnoxious, since you don't really want to create a situation where a player has to sit out for a session because they cast an optimal spell. Both of these costs also fail to actually do anything about abusive wish use, beyond putting a really lengthy recharge mechanic on the spell.

The current solution seems like a good one to me. You get safe wishes, meaning that memorizing it doesn't have to just be a hole in your spell list reserved for emergencies, and you get unsafe wishes that can save the party from virtually any situation. The high price of the latter can be handled quickly at the table, and it serves as an actually stern cost instead of a trivially bypassed one.

All of which isn't to say that your opinion is invalid, of course, but saying it isn't "acceptable" is bizarre. It strikes me as a totally reasonable design that accomplishes its goals nicely.

Wish isn't 'you can do anything'. It can't boost stats or create magic items, it's a lot weaker than it used to be. It already knocks you out for a day, you lose a bunch of strength and take massive damage whenever you cast. And XP prices do work, we know they work, anyone who has played with 3.5 has seen that wizards were really hesitant to pay five thousand XP even in those days when wish was stronger than it is now. Abusive wish use has always been only when someone can circumvent the price, and in that case the penalty is meaningless.

And it isn't acceptable. It doesn't fit with 5e's design philosophy at all, nothing in any other part of the edition permanently removes anything from your character. Hell you don't even lose a level when you die, and even if you did that still wouldn't count because you can just get the level back later.

[Cibulan]

And XP prices do work, we know they work, anyone who has played with 3.5 has seen that wizards were really hesitant to pay five thousand XP even in those days when wish was stronger than it is now. Abusive wish use has always been only when someone can circumvent the price, and in that case the penalty is meaningless That's all competently anecdotal.

[Eslin]

So is all play experience. Let's put it to the floor - people of the thread, what editions have you played and how many times did you end up paying the cost for wish?

[rlc]

A: This isn't 3.5.


anyone who has played with 3.5 has seen that

Well, this is the main problem. You're right, this isn't 3.5, but you can't exactly dismiss one person's argument by saying that this isn't x edition and then in your very next post say that it worked a certain way in x edition. Because, like you said, this isn't that edition.
We obviously disagree that it's a dumb and unacceptable limitation. I guess you're not going to see it that way, but the point is, this isn't 3.5, so it doesn't need to work like 3.5.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Which makes that broken. ID explicitly calls out wish to fix the magical brain removal, if a lesser spell was usable it would call that out too.
no actually it calls out that using Wish to restore a brain forces out the ID. The forcing out the ID part is why its called out. Presumably using another spell to fix the brain does not force out the ID, you have to do i another way.

[Eslin]

Well, this is the main problem. You're right, this isn't 3.5, but you can't exactly dismiss one person's argument by saying that this isn't x edition and then in your very next post say that it worked a certain way in x edition. Because, like you said, this isn't that edition.
We obviously disagree that it's a dumb and unacceptable limitation. I guess you're not going to see it that way, but the point is, this isn't 3.5, so it doesn't need to work like 3.5.

That is the most amazing example of out of context quoting I have seen in quite some time. Not responding to it for obvious reasons.

[archaeo]

Not sure why I need to keep repeating this: It's not like people were firing off wish on a whim in previous editions, we know perfectly well the cost was sufficient back then.

"Sufficient"? XP can be won back; if it costs 5,000 XP, I can have a free wish any time it would accomplish giving me that much XP. If it costs gold, I could wish for more of it. And so on.

A permanent cost is actually meaningful rather than psychologically meaningful. You lose something permanently, not something you can gain back with just a little grinding. I think that's a far more interesting mechanic.


And wish isn't actually that powerful in comparison to other 9th level spells - sure, it's insanely versatile, but there is a larger gulf between 9th and 8th level spells now than there has ever been. 9th is full of once a day super powers, meteor storm and foresight gate and true resurrection.

Insane versatility is what you're paying for in the "safe" category. I think a 9th level slot is a fair price to pay for the ability to cast, for free, one of about 95% of spells in the game.


Wish isn't 'you can do anything'. It can't boost stats or create magic items, it's a lot weaker than it used to be. It already knocks you out for a day, you lose a bunch of strength and take massive damage whenever you cast. And XP prices do work, we know they work, anyone who has played with 3.5 has seen that wizards were really hesitant to pay five thousand XP even in those days when wish was stronger than it is now. Abusive wish use has always been only when someone can circumvent the price, and in that case the penalty is meaningless.

They work, but as I've said, they work poorly.

Note well that, in 3.5/PF, wish required spending gold or XP or both. In exchange for the high cost of an "unsafe" wish, you can duplicate lower-level spells now without spending any material components, which is a buff to the spell's usual use.


And it isn't acceptable. It doesn't fit with 5e's design philosophy at all, nothing in any other part of the edition permanently removes anything from your character. Hell you don't even lose a level when you die, and even if you did that still wouldn't count because you can just get the level back later.

There are dozens of places in the PHB and MM with mechanics that don't appear anywhere else in the game. And it jives perfectly with the game's design philosophy; it cuts down the ridiculously long wish spell descriptions from 3.5/PF, eliminates bookkeeping with some very simple rules, and creates an actually interesting decision rather than an incremental loss of easily regained resources. It certainly feels all of a piece to me.

[Eslin]

"Sufficient"? XP can be won back; if it costs 5,000 XP, I can have a free wish any time it would accomplish giving me that much XP. If it costs gold, I could wish for more of it. And so on.

A permanent cost is actually meaningful rather than psychologically meaningful. You lose something permanently, not something you can gain back with just a little grinding. I think that's a far more interesting mechanic.



Insane versatility is what you're paying for in the "safe" category. I think a 9th level slot is a fair price to pay for the ability to cast, for free, one of about 95% of spells in the game.



They work, but as I've said, they work poorly.

Note well that, in 3.5/PF, wish required spending gold or XP or both. In exchange for the high cost of an "unsafe" wish, you can duplicate lower-level spells now without spending any material components, which is a buff to the spell's usual use.



There are dozens of places in the PHB and MM with mechanics that don't appear anywhere else in the game. And it jives perfectly with the game's design philosophy; it cuts down the ridiculously long wish spell descriptions from 3.5/PF, eliminates bookkeeping with some very simple rules, and creates an actually interesting decision rather than an incremental loss of easily regained resources. It certainly feels all of a piece to me.


So you make it cost more gold than can be wished for. And again, 5000xp is a very large barrier - have you ever had a player who didn't mind that as a cost and cast wish all the time? Because I certainly haven't.

[Gnomes2169]

So you make it cost more gold than can be wished for. And again, 5000xp is a very large barrier - have you ever had a player who didn't mind that as a cost and cast wish all the time? Because I certainly haven't.

In fact, I have! And in a game where I was a player, we had one player who had infinite free wishes and a second one who just laughed at the idea of an exp cost to anything because he had magic jars and "Didn't need to level up again anyway." Once the late game hits (which is when you get Wish), experience and gold costs have proven to be ineffective tools as far as holding back a character who finds and abuses rules or future systems as they desire. So I personally like this limitation. It ensures that, no matter how horribly a 3rd party splat book or article may be balanced, the cost of a non-standard wish will not be free, trivialized, or at least completely obviated.

Simulacrum is the only way to potentially abuse it as of now, and RAI wise (as well as avoiding being stabbed by other players wise), that combo does not work, and is unacceptable as far as playing the game is concerned. Yes, I am calling abusing a slightly poorly thought out spell to ruin other people's fun in a team based game badwrongfun. I don't think it's unfair to say so, especially since it's only a corner case in a system where there are plenty of other things you can do without invalidating everyone else.

[Valraukar]

That is the most amazing example of out of context quoting I have seen in quite some time. Not responding to it for obvious reasons.

I'm guessing the obvious reason is that it would weaken your argument.

Actually he didn't even need to include the second quote. This isnt 3.x. This isn't the Wish of 3.x. You have your opinions regarding the potential penalty, other people have theirs. Personally, from my 3.x experience, xp & gold are a pittance of a price for high-level characters to pay.

If it bothers you so much why not simply houserule it?

Live by RAW, die by RAW.

[infinitetech]

okay, instead of direct exp loss how about when it is cast they lose a lvl, and get set to that lvls exp "0 point", additionaly they get a -1 to all rolls and stats until they regain said lvls, if they use it multiple times the negs are exponential, -2, -4, -8, -16, -32 (16 or 32 have a good chance to kill them due to 0 in any stat like con for example) also lvls are exponential too

[Segev]

*cough* There's another thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?377475-Thesis-33-chance-of-never-casting-Wish-again-is-too-strict-Brainstorm-other-ways) for discussing alternate costs to Wish.

[Eslin]

In fact, I have! And in a game where I was a player, we had one player who had infinite free wishes and a second one who just laughed at the idea of an exp cost to anything because he had magic jars and "Didn't need to level up again anyway." Once the late game hits (which is when you get Wish), experience and gold costs have proven to be ineffective tools as far as holding back a character who finds and abuses rules or future systems as they desire. So I personally like this limitation. It ensures that, no matter how horribly a 3rd party splat book or article may be balanced, the cost of a non-standard wish will not be free, trivialized, or at least completely obviated.

Simulacrum is the only way to potentially abuse it as of now, and RAI wise (as well as avoiding being stabbed by other players wise), that combo does not work, and is unacceptable as far as playing the game is concerned. Yes, I am calling abusing a slightly poorly thought out spell to ruin other people's fun in a team based game badwrongfun. I don't think it's unfair to say so, especially since it's only a corner case in a system where there are plenty of other things you can do without invalidating everyone else.

So was anyone there actually paying the cost? The cost was the point to the argument, with free wishes and thought bottles and such they aren't paying the cost anyway.


I'm guessing the obvious reason is that it would weaken your argument.

Actually he didn't even need to include the second quote. This isnt 3.x. This isn't the Wish of 3.x. You have your opinions regarding the potential penalty, other people have theirs. Personally, from my 3.x experience, xp & gold are a pittance of a price for high-level characters to pay.

If it bothers you so much why not simply houserule it?

Live by RAW, die by RAW.

No, I'm guessing the reason is he deliberately misquoted me and I'm not stooping to argue with that. And I already have houseruled it, in my campaign it costs the wizard 5000xp and at some inopportune moment in time the opposite thing will happen and he won't be able to cast it again until that point. If he wished for an item he'll lose 5000xp and the ability to cast wish again, and at some point in the future an item of equal value will disappear from his possession and he'll gain 5000xp and get the ability to cast wish back. Resistance to fire, later on at the worst moment possible he'll gain vulnerability to fire, etc etc.

[archaeo]

So you make it cost more gold than can be wished for. And again, 5000xp is a very large barrier - have you ever had a player who didn't mind that as a cost and cast wish all the time? Because I certainly haven't.

So long as it's a cost that can be recouped, it's not much of a cost. 5,000 XP is only a little more than the XP you'll get defeating one CR 17 monster as a party of 4 PCs in 5e, for example. You could, of course, make these costs arbitrarily high, but then you end up with a de facto loss of the spell instead of an outright loss. If the cost is some incredibly high amount of gold or XP, or causes you to be harshly penalized for a long period of time, you're still functionally taking the ability to cast wish away, especially since campaigns at level 17 and up aren't likely to be taking huge chunks of in-game time.

Edited to add:


*cough* There's another thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?377475-Thesis-33-chance-of-never-casting-Wish-again-is-too-strict-Brainstorm-other-ways) for discussing alternate costs to Wish.

That thread popped up after this discussion began, and since the OP of that thread explicitly said that he wanted to focus on brainstorming solutions to this perceived problem instead of debating the problem itself, it seems rude to continue this discussion there.

[Chen]

A: This isn't 3.5. 'X caster is already incredibly powerful' is no longer a balancing factor, or shouldn't be. And this crap isn't an existing capability tacked onto wish, wish has always had these abilities (in fact it's currently the least powerful it's ever been). There was already an extreme cost to wish in every other edition, and they worked fine. Again, why on earth would you replace penalties you know for a fact work with ones that actively remove abilities from someone's character sheet?

How does 3.5 even relate to what you're saying? The fact that Wizards (and other casters) in 5e are already strong and versatile means they do not need even stronger spells which is what reducing the penalty on the second use of Wish would do (Wish would be stronger).

My point was why are you comparing this to 3.5 Wish (or whatever Wish you want). Spells were heavily limited in this edition. Between concentration and weaker effects, they overall got weaker. Wish in 5 edition is for duplicating spells. You also have the option of paying an extreme cost and getting some miraculous/wonderous other effect. I mean would you have preferred they just removed that other part of the spell instead? Right now it limits the power a Wizard can wield, and provides an extra element of narrative drama and allows for interesting world building consequences.

[Sir Jeff]

I still don't see any credible explanation for this assertion.

For one, the simulacrum nonsense is possible. I know that it's been used primarily as an example of an answer to perceived shortcomings in the design of wish, but the oversight regarding its use is problematic. This is an example that illustrates how the unrestricted access to all spells of 8th level and below has some RAW game-breaking consequences.

The example of the intellect devourer is a good one that illustrates that the explicit limitation on non-duplication features is probably too extreme. If a CR2 creature requires a wish to restore its brain, and that use of wish may mean that its caster may never use the spell again, there's a problem. Limited specific instances of non-duplication wishes ought not to end your ability to cast the spell, especially when they're specifically indicated in other core material. This doesn't mean that the 33% deterrent is a bad one, just that applying to any use beyond duplication is too limiting.

Perhaps these are just examples of TO impracticality and poor monster design, but wish as it stands is both too limited to adequately compensate for problems facing level two characters, and provides an easy option for any non-LG wizard who reaches level 17 to create a self-replicating, ever-expanding army for 1,500gp.

[archaeo]

For one, the simulacrum nonsense is possible. I know that it's been used primarily as an example of an answer to perceived shortcomings in the design of wish, but the oversight regarding its use is problematic. This is an example that illustrates how the unrestricted access to all spells of 8th level and below has some RAW game-breaking consequences.

It's only possible because of what is an obvious oversight on the part of the designers, who almost certainly didn't intend for simulacrum/wish interaction to be legal play. If there were other 8th-level-and-below spell interactions with wish, they haven't come to light yet, and while considerations like interclass balance or the appropriateness of CR will take actual play experience, I would venture to guess that a big game-breaking combo would already be under discussion if it existed. The Internet has had a couple months to digest the PHB, after all.


The example of the intellect devourer is a good one that illustrates that the explicit limitation on non-duplication features is probably too extreme. If a CR2 creature requires a wish to restore its brain, and that use of wish may mean that its caster may never use the spell again, there's a problem. Limited specific instances of non-duplication wishes ought not to end your ability to cast the spell, especially when they're specifically indicated in other core material. This doesn't mean that the 33% deterrent is a bad one, just that applying to any use beyond duplication is too limiting.

Why would it trigger the 33% deterrent? Regenerate is a 7th level Cleric spell; if you cast it with wish, the ID will be forced to exit the body within 2 minutes, when the brain fully regrows, though I'd probably make it happen sooner as it's pushed out. This requires reading "members" appropriately -- regenerate is certainly written with reattaching limbs more than regrowing organs -- but it certainly suggests that regenerating a brain is well within the power one should expect from 8th-level-and-below spells.

Of course, if you kill the PC the ID is in, you can just cast wish for resurrection, no harm. You can also use wish to mimic protection from good and evil, which accomplishes the same thing as regrowing a brain, though you'll have to wait for a long rest to use wish again for the resurrection.


Perhaps these are just examples of TO impracticality and poor monster design, but wish as it stands is both too limited to adequately compensate for problems facing level two characters, and provides an easy option for any non-LG wizard who reaches level 17 to create a self-replicating, ever-expanding army for 1,500gp.

The only way this makes sense is if these are exceptions that prove the rules, but you've got one exception that is a deliberately hardcore CR 2 creature meant for use in the Underdark or as a plot device and another exception that is an obvious error. I don't think either example proves much of anything beyond the fact that Mearls & Co. aren't infallible designers capable of producing the first error-free initial PHB printing.

[Shining Wrath]

For one, the simulacrum nonsense is possible. I know that it's been used primarily as an example of an answer to perceived shortcomings in the design of wish, but the oversight regarding its use is problematic. This is an example that illustrates how the unrestricted access to all spells of 8th level and below has some RAW game-breaking consequences.

The example of the intellect devourer is a good one that illustrates that the explicit limitation on non-duplication features is probably too extreme. If a CR2 creature requires a wish to restore its brain, and that use of wish may mean that its caster may never use the spell again, there's a problem. Limited specific instances of non-duplication wishes ought not to end your ability to cast the spell, especially when they're specifically indicated in other core material. This doesn't mean that the 33% deterrent is a bad one, just that applying to any use beyond duplication is too limiting.

Perhaps these are just examples of TO impracticality and poor monster design, but wish as it stands is both too limited to adequately compensate for problems facing level two characters, and provides an easy option for any non-LG wizard who reaches level 17 to create a self-replicating, ever-expanding army for 1,500gp.

The Intellect Devourer, fluff text in the MM aside, does not to the slightest degree require Wish. The 7th level spell Resurrection, which explicitly restores missing body parts, will bring someone who has died at the hands (er, claws? thoughts?) of an ID back. Assuming that having your brain removed is fatal, against which point I raise the example of several Barbarians I've known over the years. :smallbiggrin:

If you grant the PC some brief period of life after the ID is banished - the body is still running on autopilot, as it were - then Restoration, also 7th level, ought to restore the missing brain as it explicitly regrows severed limbs even when they aren't there. That brings Druids into the game as well.

So Bards and Clerics can use Resurrection, Druids Restoration, and Bards, Sorcerers, and Wizards can use Wish to duplicate one or the other without running the 1/3 chance of losing Wish.

The only full caster that can't deal with a missing brain is the Warlock.

If you want to point out that no party of level 2 will have access to level 7 magic I quite agree; I think the right way to use the ID is as part of a high level encounter with Mind Flayers.

[infinitetech]

The Intellect Devourer, fluff text in the MM aside, does not to the slightest degree require Wish. The 7th level spell Resurrection, which explicitly restores missing body parts, will bring someone who has died at the hands (er, claws? thoughts?) of an ID back. Assuming that having your brain removed is fatal, against which point I raise the example of several Barbarians I've known over the years. :smallbiggrin:

If you grant the PC some brief period of life after the ID is banished - the body is still running on autopilot, as it were - then Restoration, also 7th level, ought to restore the missing brain as it explicitly regrows severed limbs even when they aren't there. That brings Druids into the game as well.

So Bards and Clerics can use Resurrection, Druids Restoration, and Bards, Sorcerers, and Wizards can use Wish to duplicate one or the other without running the 1/3 chance of losing Wish.

The only full caster that can't deal with a missing brain is the Warlock.

If you want to point out that no party of level 2 will have access to level 7 magic I quite agree; I think the right way to use the ID is as part of a high level encounter with Mind Flayers.
actually D&D rules state that a brain is the one part that only wish or true resurrection can repair, otherwise you get a mindless thrall at lvl 0 who cant take commands, though spirits can posses those

[SaintRidley]

if I were the DM I'd make you roll a straight up chance die that had a 50% possibility of killing your character to prove your "resolve" is strong enough to be imparted to your simulacrums. "Talk is cheap, prove you're willing to die"

You either die, and your simulacra do their thing without you, or they fail to kill themselves forever. I kind of like it. But then again, I like the intellect devourer at CR two, so maybe I have some screws loose.

[Sartharina]

actually D&D rules state that a brain is the one part that only wish or true resurrection can repair, otherwise you get a mindless thrall at lvl 0 who cant take commands, though spirits can posses thoseWhere is this stated?

[archaeo]

First, as a note, regeneration seems to suggest that it takes 2 minutes to regrow a body part, and the ID stat block specifically says that a brainless PC will die after a round. You're better off spending your wish on resurrection.

However, I'd simply rule that, if you can technically create a whole new body for a dead person with wish, regrowing a brain shouldn't trigger the dangerous casting stress. It seems pretty clear that the PC with an ID inside it is all but dead; when you regrow a brain, you're just casting resurrection on a brain-dead patient.


actually D&D rules state that a brain is the one part that only wish or true resurrection can repair, otherwise you get a mindless thrall at lvl 0 who cant take commands, though spirits can posses those

Uh? Where does it state this?

[infinitetech]

in the first iteration of mind flayers i believe which was the first time brain removal was ever accounted for, it has been said again a couple of other times but i cant remember exactly where

[archaeo]

in the first iteration of mind flayers i believe which was the first time brain removal was ever accounted for, it has been said again a couple of other times but i cant remember exactly where

So, in another edition entirely, or some old version of the 5e rules?

In 5e thus far, the only time brains are brought up is in the ID stat block.

[infinitetech]

every older edition (not sure about 4) so far has had the same ruling, the brain missing is one of the key things true resurrection can fix

[Geoff]

every older edition (not sure about 4) so far has had the same ruling, the brain missing is one of the key things true resurrection can fixIn 4e Raise Dead just required a part of the corpse of the creature to be brought back, there's no (True) Resurrection or other higher-level upgrade of Raise Dead in that edition, at all.

[infinitetech]

good to know, thats the one exception then

[SaintRidley]

So, in another edition entirely, or some old version of the 5e rules?

In 5e thus far, the only time brains are brought up is in the ID stat block.

Mind Flayer stat block as well - if Extract Brain does enough damage to reduce you to 0, you're killed.

[Shining Wrath]

actually D&D rules state that a brain is the one part that only wish or true resurrection can repair, otherwise you get a mindless thrall at lvl 0 who cant take commands, though spirits can posses those

Can you cite a source for that? I did not see it in the 5e PHB.

[infinitetech]

as i said, i only know it from previous versions, i dont have the new stuff on me right now to scan 5e, sry

[SaintRidley]

Resurrection spell text in 5e:


This spell closes all mortal wounds and restores any missing body parts.

[Shining Wrath]

as i said, i only know it from previous versions, i dont have the new stuff on me right now to scan 5e, sry

3.5 Resurrection spell (SRD) (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/resurrection.htm)


Resurrection
Conjuration (Healing)
Level: Clr 7
Casting Time: 10 minutes

This spell functions like raise dead, except that you are able to restore life and complete strength to any deceased creature.

The condition of the remains is not a factor. So long as some small portion of the creature’s body still exists, it can be resurrected, but the portion receiving the spell must have been part of the creature’s body at the time of death. (The remains of a creature hit by a disintegrate spell count as a small portion of its body.) The creature can have been dead no longer than 10 years per caster level.

Upon completion of the spell, the creature is immediately restored to full hit points, vigor, and health, with no loss of prepared spells. However, the subject loses one level, or 2 points of Constitution if the subject was 1st level. (If this reduction would bring its Con to 0 or lower, it can’t be resurrected). This level loss or Constitution loss cannot be repaired by any means.

You can resurrect someone killed by a death effect or someone who has been turned into an undead creature and then destroyed. You cannot resurrect someone who has died of old age. Constructs, elementals, outsiders, and undead creatures can’t be resurrected.
Material Component

A sprinkle of holy water and diamonds worth a total of at least 10,000 gp.

If it can work on the remains of a Disintegrate, no brain is required.

[infinitetech]

huh, weird, ill look into it later i suppose, i know i have read it before, was the only reason rules wise i could finally kill this one darned munchkin for a while(until he would be on par) (i have a rule, if they defeat it they get the exp[it is always defeat-able in some way, this time they weren't good enough at spot], if they don't they get wiped, i do not do "rocks fall")

[Sir Jeff]

It's only possible because of what is an obvious oversight on the part of the designers, who almost certainly didn't intend for simulacrum/wish interaction to be legal play. If there were other 8th-level-and-below spell interactions with wish, they haven't come to light yet, and while considerations like interclass balance or the appropriateness of CR will take actual play experience, I would venture to guess that a big game-breaking combo would already be under discussion if it existed. The Internet has had a couple months to digest the PHB, after all.

I agree, that's why I called it an oversight. Also, my point is not that 5e is broken, just that there's an example of a big game-breaking combo that warrants a response.


Why would it trigger the 33% deterrent? Regenerate is a 7th level Cleric spell; if you cast it with wish, the ID will be forced to exit the body within 2 minutes, when the brain fully regrows, though I'd probably make it happen sooner as it's pushed out. This requires reading "members" appropriately -- regenerate is certainly written with reattaching limbs more than regrowing organs -- but it certainly suggests that regenerating a brain is well within the power one should expect from 8th-level-and-below spells.

Of course, if you kill the PC the ID is in, you can just cast wish for resurrection, no harm. You can also use wish to mimic protection from good and evil, which accomplishes the same thing as regrowing a brain, though you'll have to wait for a long rest to use wish again for the resurrection.

You're right, resurrection is a good solution. I was trying to point out that if one followed the advice of the ID page it would involve possibly losing the ability to cast wish ever again, but that's sort of immaterial because as you've pointed out there are satisfactory workarounds.


The only way this makes sense is if these are exceptions that prove the rules, but you've got one exception that is a deliberately hardcore CR 2 creature meant for use in the Underdark or as a plot device and another exception that is an obvious error. I don't think either example proves much of anything beyond the fact that Mearls & Co. aren't infallible designers capable of producing the first error-free initial PHB printing.

If the rule is that wish works, then, accepting your points, those are exactly exceptions that prove that rule. But again, I'm not trying to prove anything except that wish needs to be reworked because as it currently stands a game-breaking combo is pretty easy to achieve. I think that's pretty consistent with the idea that Mearls & Co. aren't infallible, and that they got it right for the most part.

EDIT: I also want to mention that even if other big game-breaking combos using wish are found, they can be explained away using the same reasoning, that it was an obvious oversight. I'm proposing that wish be amended to make this one impossible.

[Kerleth]

On a tangentially related note, 2 things.
1) I almost never post to a thread without reading ALL the preceding posts. This is an exception. Feel free to ignore my uninformed only 3 pages worth of reading post.
2) [SPOILER]This conversation reminds me of the movie The Prestige.

As far as the whole suicide thing goes, I think we have some unrealistic expectations. Lots of people are willing to fight to the death for something they believe in. Slitting their own throat is a whole different story. A character that willing to sacrifice themselves for the cause of good has a really good chance of never reaching 17th level. LOTS of other self sacrificing opportunities before they even gain the knowledge to consider whether or not some situation like this could theoretically be put into action. Also, there is butterfly effect scenarios where some little thing causes one of the simulacra to have a flashback that stops them from going through with this action. Not saying it's not possible, just saying that even a character who is convinced that it would work might just be wrong. Not due to dm fiat, or rules interpretation, but from logically processing how clones with the exact same personality, including flaws, doubts, whims, memories, urges to survive, blah-de-blah, would react.


And on a completely unrelated note, I guess the pro-simul-chain people are completely on board with an evoker being able to overchannel his cantrips for free on every casting. Say, with a splash of sorcerer so that they could use twin spell. *Walks away whistling innocently*