Is Clone the answer to immortality

[yorkshiredave]

It offers the opportunity for a 15th level arcane caster to perpetually create new young versions of itself, surely the ultimate treasure. Bang goes the class balancing act again.

[Segev]

Even if true, it's not really going to break a game, mechanically. Age is rarely a serious threat to characters in the timeframe of a campaign.

That said, it can have setting implications, such as making one wonder why wizards might go the lichdom route. But then, so does the spell Reincarnation, which you could presumably hire a druid to cast for you.

[Rallicus]

Bang goes the class balancing act again.

*rolls eyes*

Yes, let's just ignore the fact that the clone needs to be left undisturbed, needs to have 120 days to mature, needs at least 1,000 GP per clone, and also needs a vessel worth 2,000 GP.

Clone has always been a sort of "meh" spell, because no DM is going to constantly allow a character to keep making clones without facing some sort of challenge. What's to stop an adventuring party from looting the lair and destroying the vessel for parts, or the BBEG stealing the vessel/clone, and then having his henchmen succeed in killing the caster, thus forcing his soul into the body the BBEG now has in his clutches?

Also, I don't like how it seems like every major player in Greyhawk has a billion clones just sitting around somewhere. "Oh no, Tenser died! Wait just kidding, he's got a clone for that. Oh NO! Bigby, RIP! Just kidding, here's another clone."

I think it might have been Gygax's favorite spell or something.

[Demonic Spoon]

Ah yes, I can foresee many campaigns being broken by allowing the caster not to age. After all, what good campaign doesn't have old age as its chief BBEG?

[archaeo]

Ah yes, I can foresee many campaigns being broken by allowing the caster not to age. After all, what good campaign doesn't have old age as its chief BBEG?

I could see a cool campaign centered around a group of rationalist PCs attempting to conquer the one thing preventing immortality in D&D: the fact that life-restoring magic must respect natural lifespan. You could put together some antagonists who have different methods (lichdom, clone army, simulacra army), and then go wild.

[Inevitability]

Lichdom has it's advantages, mostly because a phylactery is now one of the hardest-to-destroy objects in the universe. So unless the random peasant whose parents you fed to your soul-hide-place decides to become a hero and stumbles upon a random sword that is the only thing able to sunder your phylactery, you're safe, whereas a clone-user will be in constant search for new ways to protect his clone.

[Vogonjeltz]

It offers the opportunity for a 15th level arcane caster to perpetually create new young versions of itself, surely the ultimate treasure. Bang goes the class balancing act again.

Well, to answer the thread title, strictly speaking no. The character can still die of old age, so they aren't actually immortal.

I'd also say the cost and time requirements are balanced, most campaigns won't skip 4 months at a time, indeed most resolve over the course of a long weekend, like Thor.

[Segev]

Ah yes, I can foresee many campaigns being broken by allowing the caster not to age. After all, what good campaign doesn't have old age as its chief BBEG?

I can't tell if you're being tongue-in-cheek or not, but I feel the need to point out that it's not the threat of age to the PCs that's really of concern. It's that the bogeyman of inevitable death is what motivates a lot of BBEGs to seek methods of immortality. Having one that is basically, "Be a 13th level wizard," which has no real villainous costs associated, makes this harder to justify. Why be a lich when you can just serially clone yourself down to your prime?

[Demonic Spoon]

I can't tell if you're being tongue-in-cheek or not, but I feel the need to point out that it's not the threat of age to the PCs that's really of concern. It's that the bogeyman of inevitable death is what motivates a lot of BBEGs to seek methods of immortality. Having one that is basically, "Be a 13th level wizard," which has no real villainous costs associated, makes this harder to justify. Why be a lich when you can just serially clone yourself down to your prime?

This concern has absolutely zero to do with class balance and everything to do with potentially hurting narrative options.

[Segev]

This concern has absolutely zero to do with class balance and everything to do with potentially hurting narrative options.

Absolutely true. It was not clear to me that the OP (or any other post in particular) was specifically looking at one or the other. My first post in this thread notes that, class (and race) balance-wise, concerns about aging are nearly 100% irrelevant. Campaigns just don't last over durations where it will tend to matter. And if they did, it would require the DM to focus the game in particular ways that are...unusual...for how D&D tends to run.

[Krymoar]

Ah yes, I can foresee many campaigns being broken by allowing the caster not to age. After all, what good campaign doesn't have old age as its chief BBEG?

Wasn't that the premise of a Bruce Willis movie? ..And a Rocky movie?

So many missed campaign storylines

[yorkshiredave]

It offers the opportunity for a 15th level arcane caster to perpetually create new young versions of itself, surely the ultimate treasure. Bang goes the class balancing act again.

The thread has wandered a a little from where I was going so I'll bring you back to the idea of the ultimate treasure. In our world very, very long life could be the greatest treasure for many people as life always seems so short. Is this true in the D@D world, if not why not. If it is then in 3.5e long life had to come in 20 or so year jumps thanks to a very hard to get epic feat, now in 5e it comes easily to any 15th level MU. The clone spell in 3.5 specifically could not stave off old age, in 5e the spell specifically added the younger version clause. The bit about the class balancing was for comment, just to elicit thought about ultimate character goals and how the MU might have a big advantage now in that respect.

[yorkshiredave]

ps. my campaigns tend to be heavy on storyline so maybe I dwell on things like this more than most cos they can have interesting implications for the campaign plot.

[Fra Antonio]

The thread has wandered a a little from where I was going so I'll bring you back to the idea of the ultimate treasure. In our world very, very long life could be the greatest treasure for many people as life always seems so short. Is this true in the D@D world, if not why not. If it is then in 3.5e long life had to come in 20 or so year jumps thanks to a very hard to get epic feat, now in 5e it comes easily to any 15th level MU. The clone spell in 3.5 specifically could not stave off old age, in 5e the spell specifically added the younger version clause. The bit about the class balancing was for comment, just to elicit thought about ultimate character goals and how the MU might have a big advantage now in that respect.

My answer, as with most controversial magic, is "depends on the setting", or "ask your DM". I really don't get why a system - a tool made to facilitate gaming - must dictate how things go in my setting or story. If the DM decides that the Clone spell gives immortality, let it be so. But then again, nothing stops him from ruling that the spell is rare, hidden by a wizards conspiracy or anything, if he wants so.