Simulacrum and Wish

[Tvtyrant]

Anyone else come across simulacrum wish abuse? Cast simulacrum on yourself with wish prepared, have it make 25,000 GP worth of gold using wish. The next day you repeat, netting 23500 a day. Not to mention having it use wish to refresh your party after combat.

[Cazero]

On these boards, your simulacrum casts wish to create you another simulacrum, slowly generating an army of you to dominate the multiverse.
You're late to the party, and the specific abuse you are mentionning is nothing compared to the real problems those spell can create without proper DM ruling.

[HoarsHalberd]

On these boards, your simulacrum casts wish to create you another simulacrum, slowly generating an army of you to dominate the multiverse.
You're late to the party, and the specific abuse you are mentionning is nothing compared to the real problems those spell can create without proper DM ruling.

14,400 wizards a day is far from slow. And combine it with the boon of spell recall for a wish a day for each of the simulacrum, granting them resistance to every damage type, and the ability to cast conjure elementals once per day without tapping into their very limited spell slots. Combine it with the boon for a second level 9 slot or some of the others and you could "single handedly" bring down gods.

[SharkForce]

Anyone else come across simulacrum wish abuse? Cast simulacrum on yourself with wish prepared, have it make 25,000 GP worth of gold using wish. The next day you repeat, netting 23500 a day. Not to mention having it use wish to refresh your party after combat.

large amounts of money can be made at lower levels by simply fabricating stuff. perhaps not 23,500 per day, every day, but it doesn't really matter because in this edition, apparently nobody is selling anything of value anyways. sure you can get lots of money. and what are you going to do with it? you can sit on a giant pile of gold, but that's pretty much it.

[HoarsHalberd]

large amounts of money can be made at lower levels by simply fabricating stuff. perhaps not 23,500 per day, every day, but it doesn't really matter because in this edition, apparently nobody is selling anything of value anyways. sure you can get lots of money. and what are you going to do with it? you can sit on a giant pile of gold, but that's pretty much it.

Field a vast army of hirelings. Purchase land and a title and invest in infrastructure until you become politically powerful. Plenty of things to sink gold into besides magic items.

On topic Also my house rule for preventing simulacrum spam is saying there cannot be more than one simulacrum of an individual at a time. That way they have to get progressively smaller HP until you cannot create anymore.

[pwykersotz]

large amounts of money can be made at lower levels by simply fabricating stuff. perhaps not 23,500 per day, every day, but it doesn't really matter because in this edition, apparently nobody is selling anything of value anyways. sure you can get lots of money. and what are you going to do with it? you can sit on a giant pile of gold, but that's pretty much it.

"Of value" being subjective of course, but not much to magically increase your might, true. You could buy nations and armies though. At lower levels they would serve for a reasonable substitute for your simulacrum army.

I've actually gone over it myself and houseruled it stricken from the spell lists. I can't find a single good use of the spell that is within the scope of the game's balance. It remains as a plot power for my table, nothing more.

[Vogonjeltz]

Cast simulacrum on yourself with wish prepared, have it make 25,000 GP worth of gold using wish. The next day you repeat, netting 23500 a day. Not to mention having it use wish to refresh your party after combat.

"The simulacrum lacks the ability to learn or become more powerful". Arguably this makes it entirely impossible to cast wish.


On these boards, your simulacrum casts wish to create you another simulacrum, slowly generating an army of you to dominate the multiverse.
You're late to the party, and the specific abuse you are mentionning is nothing compared to the real problems those spell can create without proper DM ruling.

On these boards that iteration is impossible as each simulacrum created instantly destroys the former (the duplicate also being you).

These read more as theoretical Villain activities than PC activities anyway, and NPC activities operate by DM fiat, so they require no justification at all.

[SharkForce]

"The simulacrum lacks the ability to learn or become more powerful". Arguably this makes it entirely impossible to cast wish.



On these boards that iteration is impossible as each simulacrum created instantly destroys the former (the duplicate also being you).

These read more as theoretical Villain activities than PC activities anyway, and NPC activities operate by DM fiat, so they require no justification at all.

it isn't becoming more powerful. it's just getting a minion. if anything, it is becoming less powerful, since it is expending a spell slot which it cannot recover.

and no, there is nothing about these boards that changes the rules to make your simulacrum you. it is not you, it is a copy of you. you can tell that, because there are many things that can happen to you and your simulacrum separately; for example, upon casting a simulacrum and copying a person, the simulacrum can be healed with a special (very expensive procedure). if the simulacrum *is* that person, than the procedure would be available for the target as well as the copy, but that's just silly. likewise, if the copy takes damage and *is* you, then you take damage. that is not the case, so once again, the target is distinct from you. a simulacrum cannot learn, so if the simulacrum *is* the original, then the original cannot learn. you could thus, for example, shut down a caster BBEG entirely by making a simulacrum of said BBEG, have it cast the full allotment of spells (again, if it *is* the original, it casting those spells will deplete the original's slots as well), and then leave it sitting there with no spells, unable to learn new ones... with the original being in the same situation. better yet, you could just *kill* the copy, and since it *is* the original, the original would immediately die. and since the simulacrum *is* the original, you could even issue commands to the original, just as you could to the copy, if they are both the same person.

note that I am not suggesting I am in favour of infinite simulacrum army shenanigans. I am completely in favour of disallowing it, since it is essentially impossible to allow it without breaking the game (and frankly, it's already quite powerful enough without your simulacrum having a simulacrum ad infinitum).

but unless these boards have somehow obtained the license to rewrite the core rules of D&D, then no... a simulacrum of you is not you. and considering how many other ways that would break the spell, that is a good thing.

[Gritmonger]

On these boards that iteration is impossible as each simulacrum created instantly destroys the former (the duplicate also being you).


I'm not seeing how that's RAW - it says if you cast this again, not if this is cast again on you. You are prohibited from having more than one simulacrum at a time - but not from having a simulacrum that has a simulacrum - it's just that the chain of authority will eventually become great enough that you won't be sure whom to address, and you'll always have to order any other simulacrum through your "prime" simulacrum to do something, and the wording could get really, really tricky. "Tell duplicate 1332 to move over there. I'll wait."

[Cazero]

Please don't restart that inane war. I was just quoting an rule abuse that goes way further than piling gold in a vault.

[Gritmonger]

Wasn't trying to start a war, much less restart one - don't think I was around for Simulacrum-Wish-War-One, or the Thread to end all Threads. Idle speculation, and as a DM, I'd probably rule that any Simulacrum created by another Simulacrum always renders two hundred pounds of prime Wisconsin Cheddar.

[Vogonjeltz]

it isn't becoming more powerful. it's just getting a minion. if anything, it is becoming less powerful, since it is expending a spell slot which it cannot recover.

According to the spell the simulacrum obeys the casters commands and because it comes with spell slots (which vastly outweigh the 1 expended) it most definitely increases the power of the caster. Hence, it's impossible for a Simulacrum to cast.


I'm not seeing how that's RAW

Well it's written in the book, so that's how it's Rules as Written. Probably RAI as well.

[Gritmonger]

Well it's written in the book, so that's how it's Rules as Written. Probably RAI as well.


I'm still not seeing this as RAW - the RAI prevent you from directly making more than one simulacrum at a time, period, full stop, no matter the target... but the simulacrum is a duplicate, not an exact duplicate because of its limitations, ergo I could not cast fly on myself and have it affect the simulacrum with me as the target, ergo it is not me. It is a separate entity.


The prohibition is on a caster having more than one simulacrum at once, which means under his direct control, regardless of what the target was originally, whether it was himself or the fighter or another caster who could cast simulacrum. Chaining this does not appear to be against this prohibition, nor does two separate casters duplicating the same target.

I'd still say it results in a mound of cheese.

[SharkForce]

According to the spell the simulacrum obeys the casters commands and because it comes with spell slots (which vastly outweigh the 1 expended) it most definitely increases the power of the caster. Hence, it's impossible for a Simulacrum to cast.

it gives them a more powerful minion. it does not make the simulacrum itself more powerful. in much the same way that if you created a simulacrum of a fighter, you could give it a sword, and the simulacrum would not cease to exist, because the simulacrum did not become any more powerful due to having a sword... it merely aquired a new tool that it can use to perform tasks.

[Gritmonger]

it gives them a more powerful minion. it does not make the simulacrum itself more powerful. in much the same way that if you created a simulacrum of a fighter, you could give it a sword, and the simulacrum would not cease to exist, because the simulacrum did not become any more powerful due to having a sword... it merely aquired a new tool that it can use to perform tasks.

This also may be wording to make it clear that:

Simulacrums don't get experience or level advancement
Simulacrums don't keep pace with the original, if the original advances in level

[Shining Wrath]

The true problem with Simulacrum abuse is that your party (by definition) are not the world's first wizards. If YOU can create a horde of duplicates, some narcissistic lich thought of it a billion years before your planet became part of the prime material, and now any person who reaches level 2 in any class is instantly attacked by (infinity * 2) copies of the lich.

Which is to say, if it works, then there cannot be a campaign setting that does not feature instant destruction for anyone who might threaten the uber-lich. So it doesn't work.

[Gritmonger]

The true problem with Simulacrum abuse is that your party (by definition) are not the world's first wizards. If YOU can create a horde of duplicates, some narcissistic lich thought of it a billion years before your planet became part of the prime material, and now any person who reaches level 2 in any class is instantly attacked by (infinity * 2) copies of the lich.

Which is to say, if it works, then there cannot be a campaign setting that does not feature instant destruction for anyone who might threaten the uber-lich. So it doesn't work.

One of the issues with this is the chain of obedience. Since the original lich can only create a single simulacrum, and each simulacrum after that obeys only its creator - if any in the chain of commanded liches expire for any reason, the command ability of the original lich is broken, and he can no longer command any of the ones below that broken link in the chain.

Now, if any of those army of liches sleep in heavy armor...

[Ninjadeadbeard]

Just a friendly reminder: The Simulacrum Abuse doesn't actually work. You can have, like, three of yourself max. And each iteration will be measurably worse than the one before.

[Gritmonger]

Just a friendly reminder: The Simulacrum Abuse doesn't actually work. You can have, like, three of yourself max. And each iteration will be measurably worse than the one before.

That might be true if each simulacrum was commanded to duplicate itself - but if each of them is commanded to duplicate you (in turn, all the way down the chain), then each of them starts with the half-your-hitpoints level of power.

[SharkForce]

One of the issues with this is the chain of obedience. Since the original lich can only create a single simulacrum, and each simulacrum after that obeys only its creator - if any in the chain of commanded liches expire for any reason, the command ability of the original lich is broken, and he can no longer command any of the ones below that broken link in the chain.

Now, if any of those army of liches sleep in heavy armor...

you just order your simulacrum to order its simulacrum to obey your orders. from that point on, you can issue commands without assistance from your simulacrum.

which is, of course, beside the point, because as mentioned earlier... i wouldn't allow this to be used (or try to use it myself, except in a very unusual campaign that revolved around trying to abuse rule loopholes for some reason), and basically nobody else would, either.

in a strange way, problems like this are not generally problems at all, because they are not subtle and are easy to fix. much more troublesome are things like the cleric divine intervention ability (it either works, and there goes the neighbourhood as the ultimate mary sue comes in to solve everything, or it doesn't, and the ability was worse than useless because now you gave up doing something useful), or problems like fighter DPR isn't that much higher than, say, rogue, and yet offers vastly less apart from DPR relative to the rogue, or that heavy armour proficiency is massively overvalued.

[Gritmonger]

you just order your simulacrum to order its simulacrum to obey your orders. from that point on, you can issue commands without assistance from your simulacrum.

which is, of course, beside the point, because as mentioned earlier... i wouldn't allow this to be used (or try to use it myself, except in a very unusual campaign that revolved around trying to abuse rule loopholes for some reason), and basically nobody else would, either.

in a strange way, problems like this are not generally problems at all, because they are not subtle and are easy to fix. much more troublesome are things like the cleric divine intervention ability (it either works, and there goes the neighbourhood as the ultimate mary sue comes in to solve everything, or it doesn't, and the ability was worse than useless because now you gave up doing something useful), or problems like fighter DPR isn't that much higher than, say, rogue, and yet offers vastly less apart from DPR relative to the rogue, or that heavy armour proficiency is massively overvalued.

I guess that the higher levels are where I haven't done a lot of analysis yet - at lower levels, they all seem like they don't suffer much from lack of optimization, and so far all my players are having a fun time, optimized or not. I do have to wonder about that top-level cleric power. If the only incentive to stick with twenty levels of cleric is to literally have a deus ex machina once a week, I'm not sure that's not a disincentive. After a while, if your teammates knew you had it, would it make them more reckless, sure that they could count on the DM to whisk them out of difficulty?

...and I guess one of the other questions I'd have is: if the creator of a simulacrum dies, what happens to the free will of the simulacrum? If it is no longer bound by its creator, it becomes a free-willed construct, doesn't it?

[Tvtyrant]

I'm just going to use the old version of the spell. Getting a wizard with 5th level spellcasting is way less abusive :P

[TheOldCrow]

I'm just going to use the old version of the spell. Getting a wizard with 5th level spellcasting is way less abusive :P

It does seem weird that a spell can create spell slots higher level than itself in addition to a slew of lower level spell slots. I like your solution.

I am wondering too if removing the wish spell altogether from the game would simply solve this.

[Gritmonger]

It does seem weird that a spell can create spell slots higher level than itself in addition to a slew of lower level spell slots. I like your solution.

I am wondering too if removing the wish spell altogether from the game would simply solve this.

If you limit simulacrum to half the levels as well, they can't ever have more than a fourth level slot. Makes more bookkeeping for the creation of one (do you remove or keep ASI advancement for instance) but does jibe with the half hitpoints.

[Myzz]

I suppose technically by RAW, IF you cast simularcum on yourself, you just used your only level 9 spell slot. So your simulacrum would not actually have a 9th level spell slot available to it... and since it can not regain expended resources... It could never cast simulacrum or wish itself...

[Myzz]

I suppose technically by RAW, IF you cast simularcum on yourself, you just used your only level 9 spell slot. So your simulacrum would not actually have a 9th level spell slot available to it... and since it can not regain expended resources... It could never cast simulacrum or wish itself...

And I think the more FUN version of this situation would be:

Cast Simulacrum of Yourself...
Long Rest and recover the 9th level spell slot
Cast TruePolymorph on your Simulacrum and TruePolymorph it into you...

You now have a creature that you essentially have control over that can regain spent resources and you have your Simulacrum spell back...

[Shining Wrath]

Simulacrum is, IIRC, 7th level. It doesn't use your 9th level slot.

So you can ask each fresh Simulacrum to cast Wish to duplicate Simulacrum (no risk of loss of Wish), creating a Simulacrum of you.

[SharkForce]

Simulacrum is, IIRC, 7th level. It doesn't use your 9th level slot.

So you can ask each fresh Simulacrum to cast Wish to duplicate Simulacrum (no risk of loss of Wish), creating a Simulacrum of you.

yup, that's the loop (that nobody will allow under ordinary circumstances, because it's so obviously broken).

but again, since nobody in their right mind would allow this kind of cheese (except in very special cheese-themed campaigns), it really isn't an issue.

[Shining Wrath]

yup, that's the loop (that nobody will allow under ordinary circumstances, because it's so obviously broken).

but again, since nobody in their right mind would allow this kind of cheese (except in very special cheese-themed campaigns), it really isn't an issue.

Yeah, I know.

I've read people suggesting that the Simulacrum is how you get around the 1/3 chance of Wish catastrophe, though.

[SharkForce]

Yeah, I know.

I've read people suggesting that the Simulacrum is how you get around the 1/3 chance of Wish catastrophe, though.

yeah, that one's a bit harder to get around. using it to make money is largely irrelevant (if you're the exploit-y type, you've already been cashing in on fabricate shenanigans for some time), but using it to, say, grant various resistances with no chance of permanent cost... that's a bit more of a problem (I'd probably rule that those sorts of wishes also have the chance to go wrong in some way, and enforce it particularly strongly when a simulacrum is casting it... but that's just me. bear in mind that my usual ruling on wishes that go wrong is that they will basically do what was asked within a limited "power budget"... it won't be specifically designed to screw you unless you make an enemy grant you a wish that they control, but it will cut corners if you try to do something beyond what it should normally allow.

[JAL_1138]

Yeah, I know.

I've read people suggesting that the Simulacrum is how you get around the 1/3 chance of Wish catastrophe, though.

On paper, yes. In play, Wish will always, without fail, backfire horrifically. Every time. Using it is basically telling the DM "Please, by all means, interpret anything I say after the word 'Wish' the way Bloody Stupid Johnson interprets architectural design concepts, mathematics, and in the memorable case of the Post Office mail-sorter, the space-time continuum, and do so with the sadistic glee of a child with a magnifying glass on a sunny day who has just found an anthill."

[Shining Wrath]

I warn my players that while you can use Fabricate to make *some* money, if you start abusing it, the various artisan's guilds have assassins on retainer to deal with people that will put all their members out of business. Individually they are no match for a mid-level wizard, but collectively they can hire someone a few levels higher than wherever you may be.

[pwykersotz]

On paper, yes. In play, Wish will always, without fail, backfire horrifically. Every time. Using it is basically telling the DM "Please, by all means, interpret anything I say after the word 'Wish' the way Bloody Stupid Johnson interprets architectural design concepts, mathematics, and in the memorable case of the Post Office mail-sorter, the space-time continuum, and do so with the sadistic glee of a child with a magnifying glass on a sunny day who has just found an anthill."

I interpret Wish fairly favorably most of the time. I figure that it's a 9th level spell, it should have some considerable power. The only time I'd introduce complications is if the PC's are trying to get up to shenanigans. That has yet to happen. If the Wish is overtaxed, I've generally done a partial fulfillment clause instead of catastrophic backfiring. That HAS happened a couple times.

[Yagyujubei]

OMFG PLEASE DO NOT

start this garbage again.

#uptodmfiat

[JAL_1138]

I warn my players that while you can use Fabricate to make *some* money, if you start abusing it, the various artisan's guilds have assassins on retainer to deal with people that will put all their members out of business. Individually they are no match for a mid-level wizard, but collectively they can hire someone a few levels higher than wherever you may be.

I've been trying to find a non-"game-y"-feeling way to make Fabricate cost more in components to make a thing than doing things the mundane way even with the time-value of money factored in. Thus it still has lots of situational use, but won't tank the economy because there's no way to a) use it on a large enough scale or b) make any money with it.

[SharkForce]

On paper, yes. In play, Wish will always, without fail, backfire horrifically. Every time. Using it is basically telling the DM "Please, by all means, interpret anything I say after the word 'Wish' the way Bloody Stupid Johnson interprets architectural design concepts, mathematics, and in the memorable case of the Post Office mail-sorter, the space-time continuum, and do so with the sadistic glee of a child with a magnifying glass on a sunny day who has just found an anthill."

no, it won't. it hasn't been phrased that way since 2nd AD&D. in 3rd and onward, it has always explicitly given a list of things you can do with zero chance of it backfiring. in 5e, that explicitly includes duplicating the effect of any spell of levels 1-8 without the need for material components (not even expensive ones), for example.

you can, of course, change that for your own games. but that doesn't change what the rules say (and personally, I wouldn't by and large change wish to always screw people over anyways. it's supposed to be a powerful spell. if you make it always screw people over, you may as well just not include it in the game, because people will just choose spells that aren't a useless piece of crap and never use wish anyways).

[JAL_1138]

no, it won't. it hasn't been phrased that way since 2nd AD&D.

I'm a bit of a 2e grognard, admittedly. Back in my day, dagnabbit, so on and so forth.


if you make it always screw people over, you may as well just not include it in the game, because people will just choose spells that aren't a useless piece of crap and never use wish anyways).
And yet it still got used in 2e. Despite everything, we never learned better. No matter how many times it backfired. :smalltongue:

[pwykersotz]

OMFG PLEASE DO NOT

start this garbage again.

#uptodmfiat

To be fair, it's half the thread title. It's not exactly off-topic.

[Yagyujubei]

To be fair, it's half the thread title. It's not exactly off-topic.

I just don't think we need to re open possibly the biggest can of worms this thread has seen as of yet.

[JAL_1138]

As for Wish interpretations going wrong: I am fully and completely aware there is a big ol' list of uses that are, according to the actual rules, perfectly and completely safe. I've read the spell. I'm just an old grognard and that's how we done it back in my day dadgummit. Not making a serious argument, but humor gets lost in text (and I forgot to bluetext. Will go edit that now).

It's purely my personal opinion, not printed in the rules anywhere whatsoever, that anyone using Simulacrum shenanigans to dodge the 33% never-cast-it-again chance (which works as-written, since only the simulacrum loses the ability) ought to get slammed hard by a Monkey's Paw the size of King Kong's fist.

[NotALurker]

On these boards, your simulacrum casts wish to create you another simulacrum, slowly generating an army of you to dominate the multiverse.
You're late to the party, and the specific abuse you are mentionning is nothing compared to the real problems those spell can create without proper DM ruling.

This combo at least has the advantage of being rather obvious in the problems it causes, and in the fact it was not intended.

of greater concern are things like a necromancer who can call forth an unstoppable army, using all his spells and such as they were intended.

[Malifice]

of greater concern are things like a necromancer who can call forth an unstoppable army, using all his spells and such as they were intended.

What happens to Necromancers that attempt this is an entirely different kettle of fish though.

Necromantic armies tend to draw the attention of the authorities.

[NotALurker]

What happens to Necromancers that attempt this is an entirely different kettle of fish though.

Necromantic armies tend to draw the attention of the authorities.

true, but its bad design to use RP to balance game mechanics.

[Malifice]

true, but its bad design to use RP to balance game mechanics.

How come? Isnt that what DM's are for?

I like the temptation for power for the necromancer, and being forced into secrecy away from prying eyes. It fits the theme well.

[JAL_1138]

true, but its bad design to use RP to balance game mechanics.


How come? Isnt that what DM's are for?

I like the temptation for power for the necromancer, and being forced into secrecy away from prying eyes. It fits the theme well.

Whether it's bad design or fine, I'd personally rather not have someone be able to hijack the campaign from both the DM and from other players via dozens upon dozens of free minions with one spell in a cemetery. Fixing it with RP is highly likely to require putting everything else on hold (lest it be steamrollered) and making the entire game revolve around Necromancer Ned and his Dancing Skeletons for however long it takes a sufficient number of NPC clerics to show up and deal with it; or else it leads to intra-party conflict (in-game and often out-of-character).

EDIT: Necromantic armies are such a staple of fiction that there should be a way to do it, both to have NPC necromancers on a roughly even footing with PCs for plausibility's sake and for people who want to allow it just to see what happens or to break out the mass combat rules. But it should be dependent on something the DM can give out or withhold, like an artifact-level item, rather than bringing the banhammer or houserule-hacksaw down on the spell.

[Shining Wrath]

true, but its bad design to use RP to balance game mechanics.

Not in the slightest. If PCs can do it, so can NPCs. If, then, necromancers can run around with hordes, the question arises why in my campaign setting (or your DMs, or yours, or whoevers) the world is not divided into necromancer fiefs.

Perhaps you handwave it away and don't worry about it; may your boat float. In my world, the fey don't like undead, and are sufficient in number and power to make roaming the land with an entourage of smelly zombies a somewhat dangerous activity. Then there's the clerics; some deities (especially those that have Life as a domain) also don't like undead.

On top of that, there's the normal response of nobles to anyone with a sizable armed force on their turf, regardless of the genesis of said forces. It's one thing for 5 people to pass through, even though technically each of them is worth a few dozen soldiers; it's another for a guy to march into your city with 100 zombies in tow.

[Malifice]

Whether it's bad design or fine, I'd personally rather not have someone be able to hijack the campaign from both the DM and from other players via dozens upon dozens of free minions with one spell in a cemetery. Fixing it with RP is highly likely to require putting everything else on hold (lest it be steamrollered) and making the entire game revolve around Necromancer Ned and his Dancing Skeletons for however long it takes a sufficient number of NPC clerics to show up and deal with it; or else it leads to intra-party conflict (in-game and often out-of-character).

If you have a Necromancer in the party, then the DM has (presumably) considered this as at least a possibility as soon as he OK's such a character gets into his campaign.

And there is nothing that 'hijacks' such an action. A PC wandering into a towns graveyard and raising a small undead army is no different to a PC braking into a school and killing a horde of NPC's. Every action has a consequence.


EDIT: Necromantic armies are such a staple of fiction that there should be a way to do it, both to have NPC necromancers on a roughly even footing with PCs for plausibility's sake and for people who want to allow it just to see what happens or to break out the mass combat rules. But it should be dependent on something the DM can give out or withhold, like an artifact-level item, rather than bringing the banhammer or houserule-hacksaw down on the spell.

And Necromancy being a 'quick way to power that is reviled by all and sundry' is also a staple of fiction.

A PC might very well be tempted to take the short road to power offered by Necromancy, but will need to act in secrecy and will be constantly looking over his shoulder.

I dont see that as a glitch, I see it as potential RP fun.

[Shining Wrath]

If you have a Necromancer in the party, then the DM has (presumably) considered this as at least a possibility as soon as he OK's such a character gets into his campaign.

And there is nothing that 'hijacks' such an action. A PC wandering into a towns graveyard and raising a small undead army is no different to a PC braking into a school and killing a horde of NPC's. Every action has a consequence.



And Necromancy being a 'quick way to power that is reviled by all and sundry' is also a staple of fiction.

A PC might very well be tempted to take the short road to power offered by Necromancy, but will need to act in secrecy and will be constantly looking over his shoulder.

I dont see that as a glitch, I see it as potential RP fun.

Exactly. A necromancer's power creates a reaction by people who wouldn't normally care about a party's existence. As I mentioned above, the fey are not normally fond of the undead; some clerics aren't, either. And then there's druids, often fluffed as anti-undead.

Throw in a few superstitious peasants, maybe an Oath of the Ancients Paladins who finds skeletons aesthetically displeasing, and you've got balance.

[Vogonjeltz]

I'm still not seeing this as RAW - the RAI prevent you from directly making more than one simulacrum at a time, period, full stop, no matter the target... but the simulacrum is a duplicate, not an exact duplicate because of its limitations, ergo I could not cast fly on myself and have it affect the simulacrum with me as the target, ergo it is not me. It is a separate entity.

The prohibition is on a caster having more than one simulacrum at once, which means under his direct control, regardless of what the target was originally, whether it was himself or the fighter or another caster who could cast simulacrum. Chaining this does not appear to be against this prohibition, nor does two separate casters duplicating the same target.

I'd still say it results in a mound of cheese.

Again, it's literally written in the book, that's how. The intention is typically not.

It's funny you should mention duplication and control because glancing through the book I found this:


"You" can also mean the character or monster that you control.

So...the Simulacrum (which is a monster you control) counts as a you, and you can not have two copies. Ergo, the Simulacrum destroys itself if it casts Simulacrum precisely because "you" are casting it.

[Gritmonger]

Again, it's literally written in the book, that's how. The intention is typically not.

It's funny you should mention duplication and control because glancing through the book I found this:



"You" can also mean the character or monster that you control.

So...the Simulacrum (which is a monster you control) counts as a you, and you can not have two copies. Ergo, the Simulacrum destroys itself if it casts Simulacrum precisely because "you" are casting it.

That's... a pretty fine parsing of the phrase, and out of context... the "You" that it's talking about is within the "Throughout this chapter" and specifically refers to Chapter 9: Combat, not on spellcasting phrasing, which does not have the same context.

In "Part 3: Chapter 10: Spellcasting" under "Target" it states "If a spell targets a creature of your choice, you can choose yourself, unless the creature must be hostile or specifically a creature other than you." There is nothing there that says "you" means "you or a creature you control" else, again, any time you cast "fly" (under the above interpretation of that sentence in that paragraph) you'd get a two-for-one or multiple-for-one every time.

Hey, even better - if "Charmed" counts under this interpretation of "controlled" - you can cast mass fly by charming all of your fellow PCs!

[Mara]

That's... a pretty fine parsing of the phrase, and out of context... the "You" that it's talking about is within the "Throughout this chapter" and specifically refers to Chapter 9: Combat, not on spellcasting phrasing, which does not have the same context.

In "Part 3: Chapter 10: Spellcasting" under "Target" it states "If a spell targets a creature of your choice, you can choose yourself, unless the creature must be hostile or specifically a creature other than you." There is nothing there that says "you" means "you or a creature you control" else, again, any time you cast "fly" (under the above interpretation of that sentence in that paragraph) you'd get a two-for-one or multiple-for-one every time.

Hey, even better - if "Charmed" counts under this interpretation of "controlled" - you can cast mass fly by charming all of your fellow PCs!
I would interpret the "you" meaning the PC or NPC you control. Because "you" the reader/player are not doing any of the things outlined in that chapter (at least not at the game table)

[PandaPhobia]

One of the issues with this is the chain of obedience. Since the original lich can only create a single simulacrum, and each simulacrum after that obeys only its creator - if any in the chain of commanded liches expire for any reason, the command ability of the original lich is broken, and he can no longer command any of the ones below that broken link in the chain.


The lich could tell his simulacrum to tell its simulacrum to obey him, so the chain of command is not an issue.

[Unoriginal]

This thread is 3 years old. Please do not necro.

[Clistenes]

"The simulacrum lacks the ability to learn or become more powerful". Arguably this makes it entirely impossible to cast wish.



On these boards that iteration is impossible as each simulacrum created instantly destroys the former (the duplicate also being you).

These read more as theoretical Villain activities than PC activities anyway, and NPC activities operate by DM fiat, so they require no justification at all.

You memorize Wish and Simulacrum. You use your Simulacrum spell so create the first double, saving your ninth level spell.
The first Simulacrum creates a second double of yourself using their ninth level spell slot. Since it isn't you who is creating it, the first one doesn't vanish. And since he is coping you, who keep a ninth level spell slot, the copy keeps it too...
The second Simulacrum uses his ninth level spell slot to create a third Simulacrum.
The third Simulacrum uses his ninth level spell slot to create a fourth Simulacrum... etc.

The Simulacra army have depleted their 9th level spell slots, but they are still an overwhelming force able to cast up to 8th level spells...

If you are willing to go a bit slower, you can order the Simulacra to create more doubles using their 8th level spell to cast Simulacrum rather than spending the 9th level spell slot to cast Wish. Or you could create the first Simulacrum, rest, refresh your spell slots, and order the Simulacra to create copies of yourself with full spell slots. That would leave you with a bunch of copies able to cast Wish.

While using a chain of Simulacra would probably make your DM kill you, I think creating a single Simulacra with the express purpose of using it to cast dangerous Wishes and take the necrotic damage for you is fine...

[brainface]

This thread is 3 years old. Please do not necro.
But what happens if you cast animate dead on your wished for simulacrum?

[Unoriginal]

But what happens if you cast animate dead on your wished for simulacrum?

Nothing. The new Errata makes clear the Simulacrum is a Construct.

Now please don't necro a thread.

[Sigreid]

"Of value" being subjective of course, but not much to magically increase your might, true. You could buy nations and armies though. At lower levels they would serve for a reasonable substitute for your simulacrum army.

I've actually gone over it myself and houseruled it stricken from the spell lists. I can't find a single good use of the spell that is within the scope of the game's balance. It remains as a plot power for my table, nothing more.

You could go back to the classic use of the spell, replacing a person of authority secretly albeit temporarily. Might it not be advantageous if one of the BBEG's key lieutenants were to "escape" the party, who now has an ally in the enemy's ranks?

[Dark Schneider]

You could simply apply that your Simulacrum is like "you", indeed it has all the same but half HP. So if it casts Simulacrum again, all the previous ones (not sure why the talk in plural) are destroyed, so it would destroy itself.
It is not a bad way to renew your Simulacrum when it spends all its spells but Wish, with the inconvenience it can't use Wish for other purposes.

[JackPhoenix]

Text doesn't work, perhaps picture will

https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/351644290019276967/425C2E8321A21EC99282FC970279E5DC5DB8754A/

[Sigreid]

It's purely my personal opinion, not printed in the rules anywhere whatsoever, that anyone using Simulacrum shenanigans to dodge the 33% never-cast-it-again chance (which works as-written, since only the simulacrum loses the ability) ought to get slammed hard by a Monkey's Paw the size of King Kong's fist.

I don't see why. IMO, you can't even pull off these shenanigans until you are such a high level you're supposed to be one of the most powerful mortals that ever lived. And really, most of the non spell duplicating safe but 33% chance of loss uses are pretty much equivalent to an epic boon. Not really a concern to me.