My player wants to make a wish [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Fable Wright

2016-02-22, 09:47 PM

If a player asked me for a wish like that, I would lean in with a smile on my face and ask him: Are you sure that's what you want? If this doesn't make him terrified, then he doesn't have a sense of preservation and deserves what's coming to him.

But yes, if this wish is granted, it will have a drawback. Perhaps it makes attacks against him gain advantage too; after all, it takes two to tangle. Perhaps it acts as a disease; all the attacks his cells make against intruders, and the attacks that microscopic intruders make, all have advantage, too. Diseases hit him drastically harder, and he suffers all the drawbacks of a hyperactive immune system. Double the fun! But that's not all. His attacks against himself, those things that plague you when you're alone in the dark, also have advantage. Wisdom saving throws, therefore, are definitely at a disadvantage.

Alternatively, ask him how his characters would phrase it. Advantage isn't a thing they're aware of, and the less precise wording they use will grant you plenty of extra little loopholes to ping him with.

Basically, the advice is simple. Take this advantage, give it a massive drawback, and make it a quest hook to undo the Wish.

pwykersotz

2016-02-22, 09:50 PM

That fails on fluff and is way too hefty mechanically. I'd let it go for the "Grant up to 10 creatures a magical effect for 8 hours" clause, but not permanently.

As an idea, make him justify his wish in character. This gives you hooks to play with. I'm not recommending turning it against him per se, but if, for example, he wishes that "his sword always strikes true" then you can put the enchantment on his weapon. If he wishes for "skill unsurpassed" then you know it's something on him. You can modify it and mold it, basically, work out the mechanics based on how he wants to implement it. When dealing with a player wish of this magnitude, assuming you're complicit (which it sounds like you are), it's best to design the effect cooperatively.

I might say that a more reasonable wish is to "possess skill unsurpassed" and give him the ability to make his next attack roll with advantage three times per long rest with no action cost. That's a hefty boost and doesn't neutralize a huge swath of the game. That's just an idea though, I'm sure other playgrounders will have others.

Edit:

And if you DO want to be a jerk and the player won't take it personally, say that he gets his wish, but that he can only attack himself until the enchantment is removed. Or deaden his blows to only deal 1 point of damage. Or just grant him the True Strike cantrip (that one is my favorite). :smallwink:

EKruze

2016-02-22, 10:37 PM

Character is affected by a Geas requiring him to knock every foe prone before he can take a proper swing at them.

CantigThimble

2016-02-22, 10:47 PM

Character is affected by a Geas requiring him to knock every foe prone before he can take a proper swing at them.

You MONSTER. :smallbiggrin:

Magic Myrmidon

2016-02-22, 10:47 PM

So my one player wants to make a wish that all his attacks CAN be with advantage. First is that like something that legit he can wish for? And second I can't just let him have that can I? I was thinking of letting him have it but all things get advantage to hit him back just like reckless attack. What do you guys think?

Emphasis mine.

So. You should let him make that wish. Because it changes nothing. Anyone's attacks CAN theoretically be with advantage. It just requires an advantageous situation or true strike or something similar.

...

On a slightly more serious note, I would say that it is a rather mechanically focused wish. I don't think a character would be something like that. Well. Maybe, I guess, if they have some strange mannerisms.

RulesJD

2016-02-22, 10:51 PM

Addaran

2016-02-22, 11:05 PM

So. You should let him make that wish. Because it changes nothing. Anyone's attacks CAN theoretically be with advantage. It just requires an advantageous situation or true strike or something similar.

Like pwykersotz said, giving true strike sounds perfect. It's a buff (free cantrip!), respect his wording but isn't the OP mechanical thing the player is asking. :smallbiggrin:

Malifice

2016-02-22, 11:19 PM

Because nobody has asked, what level is your player?

If he's a level 17 or above Wizard, then I would say just give it to him. He already has access to Foresight (much better than the Wish he's trying to get).

Alternatively, if he's not, then yeah what everyone else said above.

What? Not a chance in hell.

The wish spell doesnt make exceptions for 17th level Wizards. If you cast it and (subject to the ultimate discretion and interpretation of what constitutes monkey paw by the DM) you wear the effects.

This particular PC is (in effect) asking for a permanent toned down foresight spell.

I would make him word the wish in character. So 'I wish to make my attacks at advantage' isnt going to cut it. Once that is done, I would make a DM's call on whether what he has asked for triggers monkey paw or not, or how the universe interprets his wish spell. The greater his attempt to push the limits as defined in the spell description, the more profound monkey paw result. He goes too far and he could wish himself into non-existence.

DnD canon is rife with stories of Wish hubris.

Of course any Wizard in my campaign would have a pretty good indication that wishing for something outrageous is an invitation to disaster.

lebefrei

2016-02-22, 11:19 PM

So my one player wants to make a wish that all his attacks can be with advantage.

Or just grant him the True Strike cantrip (that one is my favorite). :smallwink:

This sounds like a great solution. It fixes an incredibly power gaming based, out of character wish (all wishes should always be phrased in character) by giving him exactly what he wishes for... And really disappointing him.

You don't have to grant any wish you don't want to, if it isn't explicitly spelled out by the spell. Every other thing it can grant is entirely up to you as the DM, and you can have fun with it or even punish players that try to grasp too much power. Entire stories are based around just such a thing.

Kaelen

2016-02-23, 01:36 AM

Well he is only just lvl 5 and he is a fighter. So it's a long way off if he can even find someway to get one at all. I just don't want to say no but I don't want to ruin the whole idea either. I want some sort of middle like I said give him reckless attack from the wish or something.

Flashy

2016-02-23, 01:52 AM

Character is affected by a Geas requiring him to knock every foe prone before he can take a proper swing at them.

That's brilliant

Malifice

2016-02-23, 01:56 AM

That's brilliant

A sword popping into existence covered in the dwarven runes for 'Advantage' sprang to my mind that he is geased to weild for ever.

He can make as many attacks with 'advantage' as he wants.

Lines

2016-02-23, 02:01 AM

I love the true strike idea, it's a work of genius.

Flashy

2016-02-23, 02:05 AM

A sword popping into existence covered in the dwarven runes for 'Advantage' sprang to my mind that he is geased to weild for ever.

He can make as many attacks with 'advantage' as he wants.

This is also devilishly clever.

goto124

2016-02-23, 02:14 AM

Monkey paw methods:

A sword popping into existence covered in the dwarven runes for 'Advantage' sprang to my mind that he is Geased to wield for ever. He can make as many attacks with 'advantage' as he wants.

Character is affected by a Geas requiring him to knock every foe prone before he can take a proper swing at them.

(This is why I frequent GitP forums!)

But let's say we don't want to be cruel, we just want to give a bonus that isn't overpowered. What now?

Maybe he gets the 'Advantage' sword that is actually pretty good. Maybe it's cursed, and has to find a spell of Remove Curse if he doesn't want to eat, bath, and sleep with it.

Talamare

2016-02-23, 02:36 AM

So my one player wants to make a wish that all his attacks can be with advantage. First is that like something that legit he can wish for? And second I can't just let him have that can I? I was thinking of letting him have it but all things get advantage to hit him back just like reckless attack. What do you guys think?

all his attacks can be with advantage.

Agree, acknowledge his Wish and move on...
When he makes an attack and tries to roll with advantage ask him how he's getting his advantage
When he says because of the wish you say...
"Your wish worked, all your attacks CAN be with advantage. You just need a way to get advantage."

lebefrei

2016-02-23, 03:20 AM

Well he is only just lvl 5 and he is a fighter. So it's a long way off if he can even find someway to get one at all.

Wait wait, he isn't even close to having access to wish (not that he can ever cast it now, impossible to get a level 9 spell for him) and already trying to find ways to, let's face it, cheat?

Huh. Well, if he is actually really talking about this already at level five, then give him a wish. Have an obviously evil, malicious being approach him offering to grant his heart's desire, and then punish him for it like every evil wish granter is bound to do. That'll take his head out of power gaming and back into your game so you don't have to worry about distractions like this.

Lines

2016-02-23, 05:14 AM

Wait wait, he isn't even close to having access to wish (not that he can ever cast it now, impossible to get a level 9 spell for him) and already trying to find ways to, let's face it, cheat?

Huh. Well, if he is actually really talking about this already at level five, then give him a wish. Have an obviously evil, malicious being approach him offering to grant his heart's desire, and then punish him for it like every evil wish granter is bound to do. That'll take his head out of power gaming and back into your game so you don't have to worry about distractions like this.

I disagree. If it's a devil, for instance, it's not looking to punish him, it will happily grant the wish in exchange for a binding contract signed in which he pledges his soul. Of course, if it can twist the wish to further its goals by some other means and still keep to the letter of the contract it'll do so, but punishing him for it is not the goal.

And please stop using power gaming in contexts where it doesn't belong - power gaming is trying to get the most out of your character by legal means, wanting powerful wishes for your level 5 fighter with no justification is not power gaming.

Talamare

2016-02-23, 05:25 AM

I disagree. If it's a devil, for instance, it's not looking to punish him, it will happily grant the wish in exchange for a binding contract signed in which he pledges his soul. Of course, if it can twist the wish to further its goals by some other means and still keep to the letter of the contract it'll do so, but punishing him for it is not the goal.
He said he would grant the heart's desire. So the Devil would go thru with it and grant him the wish correctly. Get the soul contract, THEN punish him. By punish I mean actively attempt to kill him.

JellyPooga

2016-02-23, 05:31 AM

By punish I mean actively attempt to kill him.

Why? Devils aren't idiots. A powerful soul is worth more and if this rube is destined for greatness, then the devil will be more likely to help him out on his path than straight up kill him. What if our Wishmaker is totally Evil or easily manipulated into doing evil deeds? Devil isn't going to want to get that kind of mischief out of the world just yet. No, Wish-granting Devils know their trade and aren't about punishment...they're about causing strife and just killing every "customer" doesn't make that much strife.

Lines

2016-02-23, 05:32 AM

He said he would grant the heart's desire. So the Devil would go thru with it and grant him the wish correctly. Get the soul contract, THEN punish him. By punish I mean actively attempt to kill him.

Oh yeah, sure. If there's any chance of the target wriggling out of it via the atonement spell or similar and the fighter didn't make sure to add a no actions made to kill me or cause me to be killed, nor any inaction taken regarding your own plots etc etc etc clause the devil will proceed to attempt to kill the player.

Flashy

2016-02-23, 05:33 AM

Why? Devils aren't idiots. A powerful soul is worth more and if this rube is destined for greatness, then the devil will be more likely to help him out on his path than straight up kill him. What if our Wishmaker is totally Evil or easily manipulated into doing evil deeds? Devil isn't going to want to get that kind of mischief out of the world just yet. No, Wish-granting Devils know their trade and aren't about punishment...they're about causing strife and just killing every "customer" doesn't make that much strife.

And I genuinely can't imagine a better way to sow chaos in a campaign world than granting a PC exceptional powers.

JellyPooga

2016-02-23, 05:55 AM

And I genuinely can't imagine a better way to sow chaos in a campaign world than granting a PC exceptional powers.

Bingo.

"Hey kid. We've got a special offer on; we're granting one Wish for the low low cost of selling your soul on a temporary contract! If you don't die in 30 days, we tear up the contract! How's that sound?"

*30 days of slightly dodgy wish consequences later*

"Here you go, kiddo; your contract" *rips it up* "Hope you enjoyed your wish. How's it working out for you? How about another one, same deal as before. No? Well, what if I sweeten the pot and give you a two-fer? I'll have to swing some favours to do it, but I like you kid; you've got style"

*30 days of chaos from 2 dodgy wishes going off simultaneously"

"Well well well...another happy month, am I right?" *produces and rips up contract* "How would you feel about something a little more long-term? I've got this Efreeti friend, see and he's looking for a job..."

Lines

2016-02-23, 05:55 AM

And I genuinely can't imagine a better way to sow chaos in a campaign world than granting a PC exceptional powers.

Why would a devil want to sow chaos? They're literally physically incapable of wanting that.

Gastronomie

2016-02-23, 05:55 AM

You know, Wish should just be banned. At least, if I were to DM, I'd ban its use from the start.

Lines

2016-02-23, 06:18 AM

You know, Wish should just be banned. At least, if I were to DM, I'd ban its use from the start.

Why? Not saying you can't, just curious regarding your reasons.

Kaelen

2016-02-23, 06:22 AM

Just to be clear he doesn't want it now at lvl 5. He wants to make it like an epic quest for ingredients and what not. He also knows that he won't get it till like lvl 17.

Lines

2016-02-23, 06:29 AM

Just to be clear he doesn't want it now at lvl 5. He wants to make it like an epic quest for ingredients and what not. He also knows that he won't get it till like lvl 17.
You could try offering him a shortcut - work devils into the narrative and have one cut him a deal, explicitly noting that he's a lawful creature, all he wants is a specified series of favours and the deal does not mean giving up his soul. And have the devil point out that permanent advantage is well beyond the usual scope of the wish spell and he can't guarantee what the results will be.

JellyPooga

2016-02-23, 06:40 AM

Why would a devil want to sow chaos? They're literally physically incapable of wanting that.

Don't mistake the appearance of chaos for actual Chaos.

What might appear to be random and chaotic from such a deal, can very much be a planned sequence of events from the Devils point of view.

For a very easy example; a riot. Riots are chaotic, start unpredictably and can cause massive destruction. A Devil is very much capable of inciting one.

In the case of wish-granting; the results will look chaotic, but the devils' agenda will be very specific. Wish A has X result, Wish B leads to Y and so forth.

Keltest

2016-02-23, 06:42 AM

Why would a devil want to sow chaos? They're literally physically incapable of wanting that.

All denizens of the lower planes enjoy watching mortals scurry about with their heads on fire. The law/chaos axis shows how they achieve that result, not how much they enjoy it. A demon will just dip the mortal in lava or something. The devils like tricking them into doing it to themselves.

Steampunkette

2016-02-23, 06:42 AM

Give him the ability to cast a downgraded "Forsight" once per long rest.

8 hours of advantage on Attack Rolls only. Even though with Foresight it would be advantage on EVERYTHING for that duration.

Gives him what he wants, gives him a resource to use. Keeps him within the framework of the game.

Besides, it's not like advantage on attack rolls or skill checks is THAT hard to get, all things considered.

Lines

2016-02-23, 06:48 AM

JellyPooga

2016-02-23, 06:48 AM

Besides, it's not like advantage on attack rolls or skill checks is THAT hard to get, all things considered.

Having it "on tap" is also really boring. Half the fun of being a melee guy is finding those ways to gain the upper hand.

Steampunkette

2016-02-23, 06:50 AM

For you and me, maybe. But this guy wants the easy road, I guess?

And Recklessness -would- be a great option, too. Call it Robilar's Gambit to make a callback.

Lines

2016-02-23, 07:02 AM

For you and me, maybe. But this guy wants the easy road, I guess?

And Recklessness -would- be a great option, too. Call it Robilar's Gambit to make a callback.

That's not really what it did, though. In 5e terms it would be something like making yourself vulnerable (as in the opposite of resistant) to weapon attacks in exchange for getting a free attack against them every time they swung at you. Robilar's gambit was specifically exposing weakness to the enemy in order to counterattack when they capitalised on it.

Steampunkette

2016-02-23, 07:10 AM

True... How about "When you make an attack action you can choose to perform a Robilar's Gambit. All of your attacks until the start of your next turn have advantage. But they also provoke attacks of opportunity. You also gain the ability to make attacks of opportunity on anyone who has made an attack of opportunity on you, subject to reaction limits."

Gastronomie

2016-02-23, 07:19 AM

Why? Not saying you can't, just curious regarding your reasons.
For one, because it promotes unoriginality. "Wishing" something and gaining just the "outcome" of your wish without actually thinking for yourself how you should logically get yourself to that outcome is just... it's just too easy.
TRPGs are fun because you and your friends can think up and try various imaginitive and creative ways to solve the problems - something you can't do in video games. The Wish spell allows you to solve anything without much thought. It's boring.

Another reason is that not all spellcasters can use Wish. This results in a severe gap in power between the characters - basically everything one character can do, the Wizard/Sorcerer/whatever can do better with a single spell. I don't like it.

The creators of 5e probably included Wish in the spells just because old players would be angry if it was deleted from the game. But if I were to DM I would not allow Wish, at least not the "everything is possible" type. Perhaps give different spell names for each specific effect and make them "prepare" one effect from those at the start of each day. Promotes more thinking and good gaming.

I'm generally very open-minded with rules, but that's always to make sure the players can be creative and have fun in the process. Wish defies that. It's honestly a bad thing for the game.

JellyPooga

2016-02-23, 07:43 AM

It's honestly a bad thing for the game.

I'm not entirely sure Wish is as powerful as you seem to think it is. The spell itself tells us that it's basic function is to duplicate any other spell of 8th level or lower. Using a 9th level slot to cast an 8th level spell is what we call a "bad deal", as a rule.

The other listed effects are in line with other 9th level spells, so no problems there.

The only thing that could break the game is the "true wish", where you can ask for anything. Even then, it practically cripples your spellcasting for the rest of the day and drops your Str to 3 for up to a week or so. Not only that, there's a 1-in-3 chance you'll never cast the spell again. Ever. On top of all this, the GM can twist your wish, find the loopholes, break it, corrupt it and generally turn it back on you in pretty much any way he sees fit.

Add all this up and what have you got? You've got a very powerful spell that can do almost anything...but you really only use it for its more mundane effect or in the most dire of emergencies.

Lines

2016-02-23, 08:13 AM

For one, because it promotes unoriginality. "Wishing" something and gaining just the "outcome" of your wish without actually thinking for yourself how you should logically get yourself to that outcome is just... it's just too easy.
TRPGs are fun because you and your friends can think up and try various imaginitive and creative ways to solve the problems - something you can't do in video games. The Wish spell allows you to solve anything without much thought. It's boring.

Another reason is that not all spellcasters can use Wish. This results in a severe gap in power between the characters - basically everything one character can do, the Wizard/Sorcerer/whatever can do better with a single spell. I don't like it.

The creators of 5e probably included Wish in the spells just because old players would be angry if it was deleted from the game. But if I were to DM I would not allow Wish, at least not the "everything is possible" type. Perhaps give different spell names for each specific effect and make them "prepare" one effect from those at the start of each day. Promotes more thinking and good gaming.

I'm generally very open-minded with rules, but that's always to make sure the players can be creative and have fun in the process. Wish defies that. It's honestly a bad thing for the game.

Argument accepted. That makes sense, and I'll be banning wish if it's inappropriate to the theme of the world/game I'm running in future.

Lines

2016-02-23, 08:28 AM

I'm not entirely sure Wish is as powerful as you seem to think it is. The spell itself tells us that it's basic function is to duplicate any other spell of 8th level or lower. Using a 9th level slot to cast an 8th level spell is what we call a "bad deal", as a rule.
That's an amazing deal. Use a spell slot to cast a spell of the slot below it, any spell from any class without having to prepare it? That is truly amazing versatility, and very powerful. There's a huge army approaching? Control weather, turn it into an unsurvivable blizzard. Party member in dire trouble? Heal. Party member dead? Resurrect them. Foe escaped to a different plane or the other side of the world? Plane shift or teleport. Somebody is about to meteor swarm your party? Antimagic field. Surrounded by unexpected fiends or undead? Holy aura. Party member lost both their arms? Regenerate.

It won't have the direct power of a ninth level spell, but the amazing versatility more than compensates for it.

The other listed effects are in line with other 9th level spells, so no problems there.
The other effects are far more powerful than other 9th level spells, actually. If you chain wishes you can permanently make your entire party resistant to all damage.

The only thing that could break the game is the "true wish", where you can ask for anything. Even then, it practically cripples your spellcasting for the rest of the day and drops your Str to 3 for up to a week or so. Not only that, there's a 1-in-3 chance you'll never cast the spell again. Ever. On top of all this, the GM can twist your wish, find the loopholes, break it, corrupt it and generally turn it back on you in pretty much any way he sees fit.
There are 3 categories of wish - 1) recreate a spell (no harmful effects), 2) create one of the listed effects (1/3 chance of never casting, weakness etc but the effect works) and 3) using it to create something beyond the scope of category 2, which has the same penalties at category 2 but includes twisting words, loopholes, technical fulfillment etc. Category 2 doesn't have any chance of the DM changing the outcome and has very strong effects, so I don't understand why you'd use a category 3 wish.

Add all this up and what have you got? You've got a very powerful spell that can do almost anything...but you really only use it for its more mundane effect or in the most dire of emergencies
You personally should never ever use it for anything except category 1, true. Your simulacra, on the other hand, should be wishing for category 2 wishes like crazy.

Hawkstar

2016-02-23, 09:26 AM

So my one player wants to make a wish that all his attacks can be with advantage.

"Boom - Granted. Just make sure your enemy is prone, unaware of you, you don't have disadvantage, etc."

RickAllison

2016-02-23, 11:03 AM

What are the rules on using Wish for spells with material components or long casting time? I had thought that it let you skirt around those more easily (i.e. instantly casting Hallow), but I might have just been imagining that.

Lines

2016-02-23, 12:04 PM

RickAllison

2016-02-23, 01:44 PM

'you don't need to meet any requirements in that spell, including costly components'

If that's the case, then we do have some fantastic (if admittedly niche) uses for the basic function of wish that show why it is not a bad deal. For just a verbal component (getting around anything that doesn't silence you or outright cancel the magic), you can insta-cast something like Awaken that normally takes hours to aid you instantly in combat. That's a very potent tool to have on your spell list.

JellyPooga

2016-02-23, 01:51 PM

There are 3 categories of wish - (1), (2) and (3)

Huh, I never noticed that Cat.2 Wishes caused "stress" before. I always just assumed it was only Cat.3 that caused stress. Thanks for the heads-up!

The versatility of being able to cast any 8th level spell is great, yes. But you're still giving up a 9th level slot for an 8th level effect. Unless you're in a 1-man-party, or the only spellcaster capable of casting >6th level spells, then the utility of that versatility is greatly diminished.

The "10 people become resistant to a damage type" effect is something that I'm sure is intended to have a duration tacked on. As a GM, I would houserule it that way, at least until such times as I had it clarified one way or the other. The other "standard" effects are good, yes, but I consider them to be about as good as other 9th level effects.

As for simulacra abuse...might want to check with your GM before assuming you'll get away with it. Abuse of rules is abuse, no matter where you find the loophole and GM's are well within their rights to clamp down on it.

RulesJD

2016-02-23, 01:52 PM

Celcey

2016-02-23, 02:22 PM

While many of these are good options, I personally recommend just saying probably not. Assuming the campaign manages to make it to 17, talk about it when the time is nearer. If it's a driving force of his character (he wants to get a wish to become THE MOST POWERFUL!), that's good, but I think there's a valid point about making it easy to hit opponents making battles far less fun. It takes out a good portion of the strategy.

Once you're nearer to him reaching his goal, then you should talk about it, and you shouldn't feel bad to say no. There are other ways to make him more powerful without giving him advantage on every attack.

Segev

2016-02-23, 02:38 PM

If that's the case, then we do have some fantastic (if admittedly niche) uses for the basic function of wish that show why it is not a bad deal. For just a verbal component (getting around anything that doesn't silence you or outright cancel the magic), you can insta-cast something like Awaken that normally takes hours to aid you instantly in combat. That's a very potent tool to have on your spell list.

Yeah. Just about any expensive consumed material component spell benefits from it. Simulacrum, glyph of warding, and many others. Glyph of warding is a particularly fun one because it can be used to store a spell for later that you can activate and then not have to concentrate on. I'm fond of project image, but this is good for a lot of things.

SharkForce

2016-02-23, 02:52 PM

as noted, having exactly the right spell at exactly the right time is not a bad benefit for a level 9 spell. eliminating expensive material components is even better, but when you have hundreds of spells in the setting and you can only prepare maybe 25-30 at a time, being able to pick from the full list of all spells in existence when needed is a strong ability.

wish is not spending a 9th level slot for an 8th level slot effect. it's spending a 9th level spell slot for the exact right 8th level slot effect exactly when you need it. being able to guarantee having the exact right spell is a powerful effect. you won't always want that to be your 9th level spell for the day, but there are definitely situations where i'd rather be able to choose any spell from any list of 8th level or lower than true polymorph, shapechange, meteor swarm, or other options.

RickAllison

2016-02-23, 02:57 PM

Lines

2016-02-23, 03:02 PM

This is also why Wizard is actually the weakest class for Wish! They have so many spells available that its far less useful than for Bards or Sorcerers.

They're the second strongest class for wish, since they can get their simulacra to cast it for them and so avoid the penalty. The only stronger is bard, who can do the same and has less spells.

Wish -> Simulacrum is pretty much agreed to be the most broken thing you can do in 5e.

No, simulacrum>wish is =D

RickAllison

2016-02-23, 03:11 PM

They're the second strongest class for wish, since they can get their simulacra to cast it for them and so avoid the penalty. The only stronger is bard, who can do the same and has less spells.

No, simulacrum>wish is =D

As I stated, I'm staying FAR away from any shenanigans involving Simulacrum. Yes, it's broken. We can move on :smalltongue:

Segev

2016-02-23, 03:13 PM

Does a spell copied with a wish count as being cast out of a 9th level slot, an 8th level slot, or the lowest level slot from which it can be cast?

Lines

2016-02-23, 03:16 PM

Does a spell copied with a wish count as being cast out of a 9th level slot, an 8th level slot, or the lowest level slot from which it can be cast?

There's no perfect RAW and you could make an argument for any of the three, but for what it's worth I would assume that it's being cast out of a 9th level spell slot due to the fact that it's, well, being cast out of a 9th level spell slot.

RickAllison

2016-02-23, 03:17 PM

Does a spell copied with a wish count as being cast out of a 9th level slot, an 8th level slot, or the lowest level slot from which it can be cast?

Originally, I thought it was basic spell slot. Then I noticed that the wording they used was to duplicate the spell, which to me indicates that it would be cast at the 9th-level slot.

swrider

2016-02-23, 03:32 PM

Originally, I thought it was basic spell slot. Then I noticed that the wording they used was to duplicate the spell, which to me indicates that it would be cast at the 9th-level slot.

If it is duplicating the spell would it then eliminate prior castings of spells that you can only have one of at a time? I.e. Simulacrum (I cant remember if their are others)

Segev

2016-02-23, 03:34 PM

If it is duplicating the spell would it then eliminate prior castings of spells that you can only have one of at a time? I.e. Simulacrum (I cant remember if their are others)

I don't recall simulacrum permitting only one.

swrider

2016-02-23, 03:37 PM

I don't recall simulacrum permitting only one.

"if you cast this spell again, any currently active duplicates you created with this spell are instantly destroyed"

UberMagus

2016-02-23, 03:37 PM

I don't recall simulacrum permitting only one.

Actually, it does

If you cast this spell again, any currently
active duplicates you created with this spell are
instantly destroyed.

Edit: Ninja'd

Lines

2016-02-23, 03:42 PM

If it is duplicating the spell would it then eliminate prior castings of spells that you can only have one of at a time? I.e. Simulacrum (I cant remember if their are others)

Fortunately you can use the simulacra themselves to get around this - 'if you cast this spell again, any currently active duplicates you created with this spell are instantly destroyed', meaning if you have your simulacrum cast simulacrum you're fine. That simulacrum uses wish to create a simulacrum of you, which casts wish to create a simulacrum of you...

10 simulacra a minute, 14400 simulacra a day who have half your hp and every slot except the 9th (they have it when created, but use it up creating a new one. The only ones who retain it are those who spend 12 hours casting it as a 7th level spell).

Oramac

2016-02-23, 03:49 PM

simulacrum>wish is

Just throwing this out there:

simulacrum>wish>simulacrum>wish>simulacrum>wish>simulacrum>wish>simulacrum>wish ad infinitum.

EDIT: Damn. Lines beat me to it....

Lines

2016-02-23, 03:51 PM

Just throwing this out there:

simulacrum>wish>simulacrum>wish>simulacrum>wish>simulacrum>wish>simulacrum>wish ad infinitum.

Fun times, though in the wizards defense, the designers drove them to it. The penalties for wish this edition are stupidly harsh - 5000xp wasn't a bad cost in 3.5, but a 1/3 chance of never being able to cast it again, ever, with no way of restoring it is ridiculous, so people sought a way to avoid the cost entirely.

UberMagus

2016-02-23, 03:52 PM

Lines

2016-02-23, 03:55 PM

Yes, I've seen the chain. :p
It likely would only work if you hard cast Simulacrum the first time(else your Wish would be expended in the copy), and you'd have to wait a day.

Personally, I'd just houserule that the copies are in fact yours, and thus destroy the Simulacrum. Now, the single-step cheese to avoid the potential negatives of Wish? That one seems more "clever" than "abuse", so I'd likely allow it. :)

I hate changing RAW unless I have to, so my explanation is the same one as why you can't Pun-Pun in 3.5 - somebody already has. There's a wizard out there with a billion simulacra of himself, staying out of sight while he researches ever more deeply into the nature of the universe. He doesn't interfere with anyone else, except to put a stop to someone simulacrum chaining the same way he has so nobody challenges him.

Segev

2016-02-23, 04:00 PM

"if you cast this spell again, any currently active duplicates you created with this spell are instantly destroyed"

Huh.

Well, that makes the trick an illusionist can pull with a wish-created simulacrum even cooler. Simulacrum is an illusion. As such, Malleable Illusions lets you change an illusion you cast that you can see to anything it could have been at the time of casting. Casting it with a wish bypassed the material requirement of a piece from the original. So it could be a simulacrum of anything at the time of casting. Shapeshifting simulacra are yours!

Lines

2016-02-23, 04:02 PM

Huh.

Well, that makes the trick an illusionist can pull with a wish-created simulacrum even cooler. Simulacrum is an illusion. As such, Malleable Illusions lets you change an illusion you cast that you can see to anything it could have been at the time of casting. Casting it with a wish bypassed the material requirement of a piece from the original. So it could be a simulacrum of anything at the time of casting. Shapeshifting simulacra are yours!

Hahahaha oh man I love that.

swrider

2016-02-23, 04:23 PM

Temperjoke

2016-02-23, 04:38 PM

swrider

2016-02-23, 04:47 PM

Back on the original topic, at level 20 the DMG lists Boons that are available as rewards instead of levels. If he's willing to wait until end levels, you could have a quest at 17 that earns him a weakened version of the Boon of Truesight. The full version grants Truesight out to 60ft, maybe the weakened version only works to 20 ft and requires a long rest to use for 10 minutes, then at 18 works to 40 ft, then at 19 only requires a short rest, then at 20 is fully unlocked? It's still a major advantage for the player, but that could also open up options of harder traps and dungeons for you to use then.

That's assuming that by that point the player is still interested in it.

The DMG also suggest using charms which might fill that niche. You could have the advantage granted by a god, patron, or have the charm gained by defeating a powerful magical foe. Charms are limited in duration but could provide the flavor you are looking for without needing the wish spell until a boon can be granted after level 20.

SharkForce

2016-02-23, 05:22 PM

Originally, I thought it was basic spell slot. Then I noticed that the wording they used was to duplicate the spell, which to me indicates that it would be cast at the 9th-level slot.

i would assume an 8th level spell slot (unless lower is desired for some reason), since you can cast a spell of up to level 8 with it, but not a 9th level.

RickAllison

2016-02-23, 06:09 PM

i would assume an 8th level spell slot (unless lower is desired for some reason), since you can cast a spell of up to level 8 with it, but not a 9th level.

The reason behind my interpretation was the clause saying it duplicates another spell, which means it is a duplicated spell running in a 9th-level slot. If the wording was something more akin to casting the other spell then I could see it, but duplication seems to indicate that you are just switching out the name Wish and its effect block with that of the target spell. In that case, the effect is that of a 9th-level because that was the level the duplicated spell was cast at.

SharkForce

2016-02-23, 06:56 PM

The reason behind my interpretation was the clause saying it duplicates another spell, which means it is a duplicated spell running in a 9th-level slot. If the wording was something more akin to casting the other spell then I could see it, but duplication seems to indicate that you are just switching out the name Wish and its effect block with that of the target spell. In that case, the effect is that of a 9th-level because that was the level the duplicated spell was cast at.

matter of perspective I guess.

to me, wish basically gives you a level 8 spell slot and says "here, fill it with whatever you want as long as it isn't bigger than an 8th level spell slot".

Flashy

2016-02-23, 07:28 PM

matter of perspective I guess.

to me, wish basically gives you a level 8 spell slot and says "here, fill it with whatever you want as long as it isn't bigger than an 8th level spell slot".

This is where I come down on it too. Mostly because of the rule that when you cast a spell through a higher level spell slot it becomes a spell of that level. Since the wording on Wish is that it can be used to duplicate any other spell of "8th level or lower" my ruling would be that since a Fireball cast in an 8th level slot is an 8th level spell you can use the Wish to produce an 8th level Fireball. My interpretations is that the spell lets you duplicate a spell of 8th level, not cast a 9th level version of any spell of your choosing.

As several people have pointed out though, both of the rulings are completely reasonable.

RickAllison

2016-02-23, 07:45 PM

This is where I come down on it too. Mostly because of the rule that when you cast a spell through a higher level spell slot it becomes a spell of that level. Since the wording on Wish is that it can be used to duplicate any other spell of "8th level or lower" my ruling would be that since a Fireball cast in an 8th level slot is an 8th level spell you can use the Wish to produce an 8th level Fireball. My interpretations is that the spell lets you duplicate a spell of 8th level, not cast a 9th level version of any spell of your choosing.

As several people have pointed out though, both of the rulings are completely reasonable.

Indeed. While I ascribe to the idea of using the 9th-level slot, I would not argue with a DM who said it would be 8th. You only lose a little bit due to that anyway.

Vogonjeltz

2016-02-24, 02:36 AM

The other effects are far more powerful than other 9th level spells, actually. If you chain wishes you can permanently make your entire party resistant to all damage.

There is a greater than 50% chance of being permanently burned out from 2 of these types of castings. So a Wizard almost certainly will not be doing this. And even if they did, it's 2 types of damage at 17+ levels. Not a big deal.

You personally should never ever use it for anything except category 1, true. Your simulacra, on the other hand, should be wishing for category 2 wishes like crazy.

wish, simulacrum can't regain spell slots. This would still cost you 12 hours and 1500 gold to do though. And the simulacrum spell has the escape clause for the DM that the simulacrum can not become more powerful. Ergo, the simulacrum is not allowed to cast wish to gain gold (which would have obviated the cost of the simulacrum) as money is a form of power.

Fable Wright

2016-02-24, 03:05 AM

10 simulacra a minute, 14400 simulacra a day who have half your hp and every slot except the 9th (they have it when created, but use it up creating a new one. The only ones who retain it are those who spend 12 hours casting it as a 7th level spell).

Bear in mind.

You're hinging this entire scheme on Wish.

Even if these are 'safe' uses for it, if any spell is going to be hijacked by the DM, it's this one.

Personally, I'd rule that you and all simulacra you create (whether they're not a simulacra of you) are the same person as you, from a magical standpoint. Your simulacrum can't create another simulacrum, because it's still you. If it burns out its Wish powers, it burns it out for you and all future duplicates, too. This seems more merciful than the death of a single simulacrum resulting in the chain gaining free will and hostility towards its progenitor, at least. Though I might just have the latter case become a myth taught to young wizards to explain the folly involved in trying such things.

pwykersotz

2016-02-24, 03:07 AM

Bear in mind.

You're hinging this entire scheme on Wish.

Even if these are 'safe' uses for it, if any spell is going to be hijacked by the DM, it's this one.

Personally, I'd rule that you and all simulacra you create (whether they're not a simulacra of you) are the same person, from a magical standpoint. Your simulacrum can't create another simulacrum, because it's still you. If it burns out its Wish powers, it burns it out for you and all future duplicates, too. This seems more merciful than the death of a single simulacrum resulting in the chain gaining free will and hostility towards its progenitor, at least. Though I might just have the latter case become a myth taught to young wizards to explain the folly involved in trying such things.

I simply banned the spell Simulacrum. I can't think of a single use for the spell that makes my game any better. It's abusive in almost every application.

Lines

2016-02-24, 03:15 AM

There is a greater than 50% chance of being permanently burned out from 2 of these types of castings. So a Wizard almost certainly will not be doing this. And even if they did, it's 2 types of damage at 17+ levels. Not a big deal.
That's why you have your simulacrum do it for you.

wish, simulacrum can't regain spell slots. This would still cost you 12 hours and 1500 gold to do though. And the simulacrum spell has the escape clause for the DM that the simulacrum can not become more powerful. Ergo, the simulacrum is not allowed to cast wish to gain gold (which would have obviated the cost of the simulacrum) as money is a form of power.
12 hours and 1500 gold is a fair price to pay for permanent resistance to a stat. And by your 'cannot become more powerful' logic, the simulacrum can't use those spells to buff itself either.

Lines

2016-02-24, 03:20 AM

Bear in mind.

You're hinging this entire scheme on Wish.

Even if these are 'safe' uses for it, if any spell is going to be hijacked by the DM, it's this one.
Yes, the DM is perfectly within his rights to hijack a category 3 wish, in fact a DM that doesn't do so is doing it wrong, you're specifically supposed to twist it or give downsides etc if they wish for something outside the given bounds. The DM is no more within his rights to hijack a category 1 or 2 wish than he is for any other spell, however.

Personally, I'd rule that you and all simulacra you create (whether they're not a simulacra of you) are the same person, from a magical standpoint. Your simulacrum can't create another simulacrum, because it's still you. If it burns out its Wish powers, it burns it out for you and all future duplicates, too.
But they aren't you. The simulacrum is specifically an illusory duplicate of you, partially real and formed from ice or snow. I don't know how to make this any more clear, they flat out are not you - you can homebrew it differently if you want, but keep in mind there's probably going to be some abuse involved if you homebrew that whatever affects the duplicate affects the origina, wish>simulacrum your enemy and you now have a living, obedient voodoo doll.

This seems more merciful than the death of a single simulacrum resulting in the chain gaining free will and hostility towards its progenitor, at least. Though I might just have the latter case become a myth taught to young wizards to explain the folly involved in trying such things.
Not how that works. For one thing the simulacrum has the same personality you do so it's not going to hate you unless you're a self hating kind of person, and for another - 'the simulacrum is friendly to you and creatures you designate'. Have all simulacra designate you and all other simulacra as friendly and it's never going to be hostile towards you - if such a wizard is telling that myth it's because he wants all the simulacra to himself, since he's aware that it's a lie.

goto124

2016-02-24, 05:34 AM

I hate changing RAW unless I have to, so my explanation is the same one as why you can't Pun-Pun in 3.5 - somebody already has. There's a wizard out there with a billion simulacra of himself, staying out of sight while he researches ever more deeply into the nature of the universe. He doesn't interfere with anyone else, except to put a stop to someone simulacrum chaining the same way he has so nobody challenges him.

... or that. Pfffft ahahahahaha :smallbiggrin:

Wait, is that the same explanation for anything that resembles Pun-Pun? You are a creative person.

Lines

2016-02-24, 07:12 AM

... or that. Pfffft ahahahahaha :smallbiggrin:

Wait, is that the same explanation for anything that resembles Pun-Pun? You are a creative person.

Thank you, and yes it is. I don't interfere with much, but my standard explanation for pretty much any infinite power combination is that somebody has already done it and is keeping watch for anyone else trying to do the same thing.

Segev

2016-02-24, 09:36 AM

To "non-abusive" uses of simulacrum, in a game in 3.5 I played in we had a BBEG who, for various reasons, my PC had lost faith in the party's ability to deal with. Or, rather, mental and spiritual fortitude to deal with. (They'd released her after capturing her, healing her up, and only extracting a promise to not do mean stuff anymore. Then she took and army and burned our hometown while we were away.)

He had a sample of her blood from when we captured her, and used this to create a simulacrum of her. He also used two wishes to create a 50,000 gp diamond (because he wasn't sure how many HD she had, and would rather hedge his bets. Yes, that cost him 10,000 XP). He used trap the soul and put the trigger (keyed specifically to the BBEG, and not the simulacrum) in an envelope that he handed to the simulacrum, and told the simulacrum that he was fed up with being on a team of willful losers, and wanted to defect. In the documents were a sample of what he could offer in terms of knowledge on the losers he'd been partied with, and what he could do as her ally, as well as his terms. She was to go to the BBEG and make the offer on his behalf, using the fact that she looks like the BBEG and has all the BBEG's basic knowledge to find her and get to her past her army and get the audience.

It worked; the BBEG accepted the documents with the intent of at least looking them over. The simulacrum didn't know it was a trap, so no amount of lie-detection (magical or mundane) could see through the deception. Due to a clause thrown in on one of the wishes, the diamond turned blue when the BBEG's soul was trapped, so my character knew it had worked.

This BBEG wasn't the final one for the campaign, so it wasn't even campaign-ruining. It just was a very angry and frustrated wizard who knew what he was doing.

Shining Wrath

2016-02-24, 09:48 AM

Fine. All his attacks have advantage.
This is gained by first feinting, then attacking.
So he gets half as many attacks, but the ones he gets, have advantage.
Against an extremely high AC target he'll come out ahead; most of the time, not so much.

Lines

2016-02-24, 09:54 AM

Shining Wrath

2016-02-24, 10:10 AM

Thank you, and yes it is. I don't interfere with much, but my standard explanation for pretty much any infinite power combination is that somebody has already done it and is keeping watch for anyone else trying to do the same thing.

I do the same. Anything that breaks the game world - not "I have advantage on all attacks" broken, or even "I cast Cone of Cold on myself and my steed, targeting others" broken, but "I have ALL POWER!" broken, either doesn't work, or someone else did it first and since they have all power they will stop you.

Armorer's guilds have specialized assassins for dealing with people who want to Fabricate enough plate mail to put them out of business. Conjurers who are going to conjure their way to vast wealth get offers they can't refuse to join the Conjurers' Guild, which has very high dues. And the guy / gal who figured out the Simulacrum chain is of course an uber-lich, because nothing says "There should be a billion copies of MEEEEEEE" quite like someone willing to sacrifice their soul for eternal life. :smallbiggrin:

Lines

2016-02-24, 10:20 AM

Armorer's guilds have specialized assassins for dealing with people who want to Fabricate enough plate mail to put them out of business.

Ok, we've got some pretty big differences here. I would never do this and it'd be pretty damn verisimilitude destroying if I did - I do the no omnipotence thing because someone already omnipotent would stop them, armourers casually employing assassins dangerous enough to threaten wizards who can fabricate is silly. Any economy I make assumes spells like fabricate and control weather are already a part of things. Humans aren't perfectly rational economic actors, but the idea of spells not being used when useful is silly - all it does is improve quality of life and alter the pricing of goods.

Create food and water, goodberry, fabricate, wall of stone, control weather, teleportation circle, move earth, reverse gravity, sending, animate dead, wish, regenerate, cure wounds, lesser/greater restoration, plant growth, control water, mending, prestidigitation, continual flame, locate object, speak with dead, raise dead, guidance, augury and plane shift are all going to mean a D&D economy looks nothing like our real world economy - control weather is not going to be as common as say locate object, but they'll both be affecting things pretty strongly.

There are too many spells useful in too many ways to go 'ok everything looks like 16th century England with monsters but no guns for some reason, aaaaand done', there's no proper justification for magic not being used to actually do anything. I was initially gonna say 14th century but there are plenty of technologies in D&D that hail from the 16th and 17th centuries for that to sit ok with me.

Fable Wright

2016-02-24, 01:19 PM

I simply banned the spell Simulacrum. I can't think of a single use for the spell that makes my game any better. It's abusive in almost every application.

This is sane and logical, but takes away a valuable DM tool. So I'm mixed on banning it straight up.

Yes, the DM is perfectly within his rights to hijack a category 3 wish, in fact a DM that doesn't do so is doing it wrong, you're specifically supposed to twist it or give downsides etc if they wish for something outside the given bounds. The DM is no more within his rights to hijack a category 1 or 2 wish than he is for any other spell, however.

The DM is within his rights to hijack any spell within the scope of its effect. Maybe Contagion starts an unknown disease. Maybe Heat Metal causes undesirable side effects. Maybe Stoneshape can't affect a rock because of unusually high ore content. Wish just has such a huge scope that the DM can mess with it to tweak balance or the fun of the game in any number of ways. All I'm saying is that, in a world where magic is even the least bit unpredictable, this is playing with fire.

But they aren't you. The simulacrum is specifically an illusory duplicate of you, partially real and formed from ice or snow. I don't know how to make this any more clear, they flat out are not you - you can homebrew it differently if you want, but keep in mind there's probably going to be some abuse involved if you homebrew that whatever affects the duplicate affects the origina, wish>simulacrum your enemy and you now have a living, obedient voodoo doll.

As I mentioned, any simulacrum you make, even if it isn't of you, would be ruled to be you for the purposes of effects at my table. No, this is not RAW, this is a hot fix that fuses well with a lot of magical rules laid out in other works. Capturing a simulacrum the big bad made, therefore, would be a pretty big deal.

Not how that works. For one thing the simulacrum has the same personality you do so it's not going to hate you unless you're a self hating kind of person, and for another - 'the simulacrum is friendly to you and creatures you designate'. Have all simulacra designate you and all other simulacra as friendly and it's never going to be hostile towards you - if such a wizard is telling that myth it's because he wants all the simulacra to himself, since he's aware that it's a lie.

Hah! You're funny.

Let's say you woke up one morning and someone told you that you could never learn a new fact, never recover your spells, never heal damage, and could do nothing about it. Life can hold no meaning for you. The simulacrum is compelled by magic to be friendly to you—as long as the spell lasts. When its creator is dead, the commands the creator placed on the simulacrum are released, and the free simulacrum, owning the rest of the chain, is free to remove the restrictions on its own creations. And it's going to be rather, shall we say, displeased on the fact that it was created with no room to grow.

RAW does not specify what happens to a Simulacrum after its creator dies. This is a gap that the DM is free to fill. This is how I'd fill it.

Lines

2016-02-24, 01:52 PM

The DM is within his rights to hijack any spell within the scope of its effect. Maybe Contagion starts an unknown disease. Maybe Heat Metal causes undesirable side effects. Maybe Stoneshape can't affect a rock because of unusually high ore content. Wish just has such a huge scope that the DM can mess with it to tweak balance or the fun of the game in any number of ways. All I'm saying is that, in a world where magic is even the least bit unpredictable, this is playing with fire.
Why would magic be unpredictable, outside of wild magic, category 3 wishes and other such spells that state uncertain effects? The rules explain exactly how magic works. If a player rolls to hit with a sword, gets a 19 and hits, do you feel it fair to your player to announce 'no, things are unpredictable so for no apparent reason you don't do any damage, something else happens'?. You can adjudicate a player wanting to start an unknown disease with contagion, but if they use contagion(slimy doom) and you decide that the spell which has explicit effects suddenly doesn't have those effects for no reason, you screwed up. Stoneshape could indeed not affect a rock because of high ore content, but that has to be something the players have a chance of figuring out - otherwise you're just arbitrarily declaring when a spell works and when it doesn't. Heat metal should have the exact same possible side effects that manually heating up the metal would have, ie those side effects should be logically consistent.

Again, magic is not unpredictable. The wizard casting it knows exactly what a fireball or animated skeleton will do.

As I mentioned, any simulacrum you make, even if it isn't of you, would be ruled to be you for the purposes of effects at my table. No, this is not RAW, this is a hot fix that fuses well with a lot of magical rules laid out in other works. Capturing a simulacrum the big bad made, therefore, would be a pretty big deal.
No comment, make whatever house rules you want. If you want a simple fix, just rule there can only be one simulacrum of a particular creature in existence at one time.

Hah! You're funny.

Let's say you woke up one morning and someone told you that you could never learn a new fact, never recover your spells, never heal damage, and could do nothing about it. Life can hold no meaning for you. The simulacrum is compelled by magic to be friendly to you—as long as the spell lasts. When its creator is dead, the commands the creator placed on the simulacrum are released, and the free simulacrum, owning the rest of the chain, is free to remove the restrictions on its own creations. And it's going to be rather, shall we say, displeased on the fact that it was created with no room to grow.

RAW does not specify what happens to a Simulacrum after its creator dies. This is a gap that the DM is free to fill. This is how I'd fill it.
Now let's imagine I'm a partly illusory creature made out of snow that has magical set of rules to follow that state I'm friendly to whoever my creator designates. And no it isn't going to grow displeased, I don't even think it's sentient but either way it can't really change its mind about something.

RAW does not specify what happens to a Simulacrum after its creator dies.
Duration: Until dispelled. RAW does specify what happens, nothing. If a creature was designated friendly before its creators death its creator dying will change nothing.

This is a gap that the DM is free to fill.
No he isn't. The simulacrum is friendly to you and creatures you designate, if a creature was designated friendly for a simulacrum there is nothing in the text about the creator's death changing that.

This is how I'd fill it.
Hah! You're funny.

pwykersotz

2016-02-24, 02:10 PM

Why would magic be unpredictable, outside of wild magic, category 3 wishes and other such spells that state uncertain effects? The rules explain exactly how magic works. If a player rolls to hit with a sword, gets a 19 and hits, do you feel it fair to your player to announce 'no, things are unpredictable so for no apparent reason you don't do any damage, something else happens'?. You can adjudicate a player wanting to start an unknown disease with contagion, but if they use contagion(slimy doom) and you decide that the spell which has explicit effects suddenly doesn't have those effects for no reason, you screwed up. Stoneshape could indeed not affect a rock because of high ore content, but that has to be something the players have a chance of figuring out - otherwise you're just arbitrarily declaring when a spell works and when it doesn't. Heat metal should have the exact same possible side effects that manually heating up the metal would have, ie those side effects should be logically consistent.

Again, magic is not unpredictable. The wizard casting it knows exactly what a fireball or animated skeleton will do.

No comment, make whatever house rules you want. If you want a simple fix, just rule there can only be one simulacrum of a particular creature in existence at one time.

Now let's imagine I'm a partly illusory creature made out of snow that has magical set of rules to follow that state I'm friendly to whoever my creator designates. And no it isn't going to grow displeased, I don't even think it's sentient but either way it can't really change its mind about something.

RAW does not specify what happens to a Simulacrum after its creator dies.
Duration: Until dispelled. RAW does specify what happens, nothing. If a creature was designated friendly before its creators death its creator dying will change nothing.

This is a gap that the DM is free to fill.
No he isn't. The simulacrum is friendly to you and creatures you designate, if a creature was designated friendly for a simulacrum there is nothing in the text about the creator's death changing that.

This is how I'd fill it.
Hah! You're funny.

Ah, the age-old fight between Rules as Law and Rules as Guidelines. Good times. :smallsmile:

Lines

2016-02-24, 02:13 PM

Ah, the age-old fight between Rules as Law and Rules as Guidelines. Good times. :smallsmile:

No, not at all. It's the fight between 'it's a forum, the only thing we have in common is the writing in the book and here's what the writing says' and 'I've declared my houserules to be how the game works'.

Spectre9000

2016-02-24, 02:35 PM

Segev

2016-02-24, 02:48 PM

pwykersotz

2016-02-24, 02:49 PM

I'm in the minority, clearly, but the dude is level 17 minimum. He's supposed to be a badass. Why not grant his wish? It's not like he's saying all his attacks auto hit, nor disadvantage can't cancel out his advantage. As a caster capable of casting Wish, he most likely has only one attack maybe two, and might use his bonus action for another, so it's not OP from a melee perspective. From a casting perspective, there are so many spells that don't even require an attack roll, that it's kind of a moot point. He can still roll perfectly crappy both times. At the point at which a character can cast Wish, I don't see this as being more OP than they're supposed to be.

Mostly because it invalidates a huge spectrum of the game. There are countless systems in place to jockey for advantage that are mostly rendered meaningless by granting the wish. It's kind of like the equivalent of enabling infinite money cheat codes in a video game. Sure the game can still be fun in a certain way, but all those things they did to make you feel rewarded for looting that secret stash or finding the dragon hoard are pretty much nonfactors now. And when it's a cooperative game with other players and a DM and everyone wants to have fun, this kind of handwave is fairly destructive to a campaign because everyone else is still needing to abide by those rules.

Also, it begins a Wish arms-race of sorts. "Well, he got advantage to everything, so can I have my blows treat all creatures as if they were vulnerable to them?" "Can I be immune to negative status conditions?" "Can I have legendary actions?" These are the sorts of things that signal the end of a campaign, because the rewarding part of playing is gone after they're implemented. You didn't work for them within the system, you didn't build for them or cleverly earn them through clever machinations. You just wished and it was handwaved in. Exactly like a cheat code.

This is just my thoughts on the matter from my perspective though, since there are so many different types of games out there, others might have different reasons for you.

No, not at all. It's the fight between 'it's a forum, the only thing we have in common is the writing in the book and here's what the writing says' and 'I've declared my houserules to be how the game works'.

Eh, I don't like this argument. In my opinion it stifles creative discussion. There are several tropes common to fantasy that can be taken with equal degrees of validity, and magic being science or magic being chaos are a couple of them. Besides, all assumptions were fairly explicit in the post, which more or less eliminates the difficulty in understanding.

Lines

2016-02-24, 02:56 PM

Interestingly, simulacra are illusions. Not conjurations, not transmutations, not even necromantic constructs. Illusions.

Though they obviously have real effects, they are still just illusions.

There is more than enough room to argue that their very minds are illusory. That they are, even more than a robot, not really "there" in a mental sense. They are honest-to-goodness philosophical zombies. They look like you. They act like you. They present themselves in a way that comports with a being with your memories. But they are not you, and they are not a real being with actual hopes and dreams. They're an illusory presentation of something that acts just as you would in that situation. But they lack the "I" behind the eyes that has a true will, a true sense of being their own thing. They are you, not in the sense that "you" woke up as a second person who can't get any better than "you" were the moment "your" memories split, but in the sense that they literally do not perceive themselves. Not even as something distinct from you.

So a simulacrum doesn't resent its impermanence nor its stagnation because you didn't resent that your simulacrum would suffer these conditions. For all purposes, it "knows" it's a simulacrum and it doesn't care, because it's not got a self-identity to "miss" if it imagines a future where it ceases to be. It is more likely to be concerned with the real version of itself's continued existence, since that's what the real one would be concerned about.

That's precisely my view on it too, but it's not specifically laid out in the rules so each DM really is allowed to choose how it works - though another piece of soft evidence is the fact that if it did have a proper mind, it would likely mention that as being the case because creating an independent lobotomised version of yourself is evil.

Eh, I don't like this argument. In my opinion it stifles creative discussion. There are several tropes common to fantasy that can be taken with equal degrees of validity, and magic being science or magic being chaos are a couple of them. Besides, all assumptions were fairly explicit in the post, which more or less eliminates the difficulty in understanding.
Discussion's fine, presenting your houserules as how things work isn't - that's how misinformation spreads. If you present things confidently as the truth, some people will vaguely remember it when the issue comes up for them.

JackPhoenix

2016-02-24, 04:07 PM

Fable Wright

2016-02-24, 04:53 PM

Why would magic be unpredictable, outside of wild magic, category 3 wishes and other such spells that state uncertain effects? The rules explain exactly how magic works. If a player rolls to hit with a sword, gets a 19 and hits, do you feel it fair to your player to announce 'no, things are unpredictable so for no apparent reason you don't do any damage, something else happens'?

Depending on what they were fighting, absolutely! If they're attacking a thing from the Far Realms, this is definitely within the realm of possibility. If they're attacking the magical load-bearing thing or an archmage critical to the existence of the setting, I'd have no problems telling them that their attempt had some unpredicted effect instead. I will give hooks for the player to investigate why things work that way, perhaps a glowing blue field encasing the blade that harmlessly passes through the archmage, but I don't have to give them a reason directly.

ie those side effects should be logically consistent.

Sure! I can say what happens to get across what I need in the moment, and give the players ways to investigate the internally consistent change later on.

Again, magic is not unpredictable. The wizard casting it knows exactly what a fireball or animated skeleton will do.

He knows what it will do in perfect, normal conditions. He does not know how or if being in an Eberron-style manifest zone, burning building, or room with a high fire elemental presence will affect the casting.

Now let's imagine I'm a partly illusory creature made out of snow that has magical set of rules to follow that state I'm friendly to whoever my creator designates. And no it isn't going to grow displeased, I don't even think it's sentient but either way it can't really change its mind about something.

You... just said that it had its creator's personality. Their personality is all that define them. Now you say that no, they have no personality? This seems Rules as Selectively Beneficial. :smallconfused:

This is a gap that the DM is free to fill.
No he isn't. The simulacrum is friendly to you and creatures you designate, if a creature was designated friendly for a simulacrum there is nothing in the text about the creator's death changing that.

Mmkay. Tell me where I can find exactly what friendly means, and rules that tell me where the freed simulacrum can't decide to erase those rules from the chain it created, then.

This is how I'd fill it.
Hah! You're funny.

Thank you! I aim to amuse and offer interpretations for other DMs to consider at their table.

Discussion's fine, presenting your houserules as how things work isn't - that's how misinformation spreads. If you present things confidently as the truth, some people will vaguely remember it when the issue comes up for them.

I did explicitly say that this is how I'd adjudicate the situation. I never presented this as Rules as Written, I'd presented this as a ruling that DMs could use to keep effects as written and present unexpected problems to players who tried something along these lines.

Temperjoke

2016-02-24, 04:55 PM

The dude is level 5 fighter, and got access to Wish through some other source that I've either missed or that's unspecified in the thread.

You missed a later posting by the OP that said the player would have to earn it and wouldn't get it sooner than 17, which the player was fine with. I think it's more that the OP was testing how big a concern it could be, potentially to initiate it earlier or to deny the player.

UberMagus

2016-02-24, 06:31 PM

Personally, I'd rule that you and all simulacra you create (whether they're not a simulacra of you) are the same person, from a magical standpoint. Your simulacrum can't create another simulacrum, because it's still you. If it burns out its Wish powers, it burns it out for you and all future duplicates, too. This seems more merciful than the death of a single simulacrum resulting in the chain gaining free will and hostility towards its progenitor, at least. Though I might just have the latter case become a myth taught to young wizards to explain the folly involved in trying such things.

So, you use the party rogue to get you some of the BBEG sorcerer's hair, sneak up and Wish a simulacrum of him, and then have that simulacrum spam Wish option 3(using SP) until it shorts out and burns out the BBEG's mind. :p

Fable Wright

2016-02-24, 06:41 PM

So, you use the party rogue to get you some of the BBEG sorcerer's hair, sneak up and Wish a simulacrum of him, and then have that simulacrum spam Wish option 3(using SP) until it shorts out and burns out the BBEG's mind. :p

This was a miscommunication that I failed to notice until now. All the simulacra you make are the same individual as you, whether or not they're of you. Your simulacra of the BBEG, while a good thing to have in general, will just succeed in burning out your own wish option.

That aside, I'd caution against any GM giving their BBEGs access to the Wish spell. Ever. It's unfair if BBEG wishes work out better than party wishes, the effects are backbreaking and devastating to the party, and you can just let them achieve the effects they need in literally any other manner.

MadBear

2016-02-24, 07:10 PM

So my one player wants to make a wish that all his attacks can be with advantage.

well..... since advantage is an out of game term that has no meaning in-game, I'd totally grant it to him.

Player: I make an attack.
DM: do you want that attack to be with advantage?
Player: Of course!
DM: Ok, your sword disappears and is replaced with a small tube that squirts out a foul smelling liquid. Make a knowledge check.
Player: 25!
DM: It's super effective against fleas.

and that is how it's done :D

UberMagus

2016-02-24, 07:35 PM

This was a miscommunication that I failed to notice until now. All the simulacra you make are the same individual as you, whether or not they're of you. Your simulacra of the BBEG, while a good thing to have in general, will just succeed in burning out your own wish option.

That aside, I'd caution against any GM giving their BBEGs access to the Wish spell. Ever. It's unfair if BBEG wishes work out better than party wishes, the effects are backbreaking and devastating to the party, and you can just let them achieve the effects they need in literally any other manner.

If you're going to alter the spell that much, you might as well just ban it out, honestly. ::shrugs::
Personally, I don't mind the "multiple simulacra are YOUR simulacra" part, BUT the whole "something the Simulacrum does affects YOU" is patently altering the mechanics. Heck, I think it's pretty clever to use the Simulacrum to dodge the burnout chance, it's only when it starts chain-making Simulacra that it really needs to be killed. Being a Wizard, of that level, burning that much in materials, to get ONE wish without the risk of burnout seems completely fair. Now, that doesn't mean that if they go option 3 that you can't twist the hell out of it, but have the feedback somehow come back to the Wizard? That's awfully weird. Now, if there were a telepathic link or somesuch, I could see a strong "maybe", but, as it is, it just seems like a really stark alteration of the spell.

RickAllison

2016-02-24, 07:40 PM

well..... since advantage is an out of game term that has no meaning in-game, I'd totally grant it to him.

Player: I make an attack.
DM: do you want that attack to be with advantage?
Player: Of course!
DM: Ok, your sword disappears and is replaced with a small tube that squirts out a foul smelling liquid. Make a knowledge check.
Player: 25!
DM: It's super effective against fleas.

and that is how it's done :D

See, I feel it needs to be a little better. Give them the Mole Rat Repellant Stick from Fallout 3. Let them complain about how useless it is, but make it blow up the heads of creatures that he kills (or something like that). Maybe he'll enjoy it more :smallwink:

Fable Wright

2016-02-24, 08:07 PM

Personally, I don't mind the "multiple simulacra are YOUR simulacra" part, BUT the whole "something the Simulacrum does affects YOU" is patently altering the mechanics. Heck, I think it's pretty clever to use the Simulacrum to dodge the burnout chance, it's only when it starts chain-making Simulacra that it really needs to be killed. Being a Wizard, of that level, burning that much in materials, to get ONE wish without the risk of burnout seems completely fair. Now, that doesn't mean that if they go option 3 that you can't twist the hell out of it, but have the feedback somehow come back to the Wizard? That's awfully weird. Now, if there were a telepathic link or somesuch, I could see a strong "maybe", but, as it is, it just seems like a really stark alteration of the spell.

The thing is, in this scenario, they're casting Wish to duplicate the Simulacrum spell with no time or material cost. The simulacrum appears, acts on their initiative count, and uses the unsafe version of Wish, with no risk to the user, because it's the Simulacrum that would burn out its wishcasting. Oh, and the simulacrum also acts as a disposable spell battery of 5-8th level spells in the same encounter to boot.

What part of this is clever or a fair use of resources?

Segev

2016-02-24, 10:27 PM

The thing is, in this scenario, they're casting Wish to duplicate the Simulacrum spell with no time or material cost. The simulacrum appears, acts on their initiative count, and uses the unsafe version of Wish, with no risk to the user, because it's the Simulacrum that would burn out its wishcasting. Oh, and the simulacrum also acts as a disposable spell battery of 5-8th level spells in the same encounter to boot.

What part of this is clever or a fair use of resources?

The use of a 9th level spell to do something it says it can do, explicitly?

RickAllison

2016-02-24, 10:37 PM

The use of a 9th level spell to do something it says it can do, explicitly?

Indeed. The fault of the spell lies not in Wish, but the spell-that-shall-not-be-named. If it wasn't for that one, we could move beyond the same strategy that has been discussed to death...

JoeJ

2016-02-25, 01:55 AM

Interestingly, simulacra are illusions. Not conjurations, not transmutations, not even necromantic constructs. Illusions.

Though they obviously have real effects, they are still just illusions.

There is more than enough room to argue that their very minds are illusory. That they are, even more than a robot, not really "there" in a mental sense. They are honest-to-goodness philosophical zombies. They look like you. They act like you. They present themselves in a way that comports with a being with your memories. But they are not you, and they are not a real being with actual hopes and dreams. They're an illusory presentation of something that acts just as you would in that situation. But they lack the "I" behind the eyes that has a true will, a true sense of being their own thing. They are you, not in the sense that "you" woke up as a second person who can't get any better than "you" were the moment "your" memories split, but in the sense that they literally do not perceive themselves. Not even as something distinct from you.

So a simulacrum doesn't resent its impermanence nor its stagnation because you didn't resent that your simulacrum would suffer these conditions. For all purposes, it "knows" it's a simulacrum and it doesn't care, because it's not got a self-identity to "miss" if it imagines a future where it ceases to be. It is more likely to be concerned with the real version of itself's continued existence, since that's what the real one would be concerned about.

Which is also a good argument for your simulacra counting as you for the purpose of casting spells like Simulacra or Wish. It's not a person; it's not real in any meaningful sense. It's just a proxy for you.

Lines

2016-02-25, 02:24 AM

Depending on what they were fighting, absolutely! If they're attacking a thing from the Far Realms, this is definitely within the realm of possibility. If they're attacking the magical load-bearing thing or an archmage critical to the existence of the setting, I'd have no problems telling them that their attempt had some unpredicted effect instead. I will give hooks for the player to investigate why things work that way, perhaps a glowing blue field encasing the blade that harmlessly passes through the archmage, but I don't have to give them a reason directly.
That's completely different. That's the target's ability - a thing from the far realms could quite easily have such a thing, and it wouldn't be sucker punching the player to do so. Works the same for spells - arbitrarily declaring a fireball does something completely different is not ok, having it have no effect on a red dragon is. Same with wish - you're allowed to have the target or environment effect things as long as you're not biased about what gets affected and what doesn't, but you can't 'interpret' a category 1 or 2 wish as having unpredictable effects without very special circumstances (say, wishing in a field of wild magic), that's a house rule.

He knows what it will do in perfect, normal conditions. He does not know how or if being in an Eberron-style manifest zone, burning building, or room with a high fire elemental presence will affect the casting.
Sure. As with martial abilities, your environment can easily affect what will happen when you cast a spell - doesn't have anything to do with a regular casting of wish, though. We're discussing what happens when you cast wish, and I'm pretty sure being in an environment that alters your spells was not part of anyone's assumptions.

You... just said that it had its creator's personality. Their personality is all that define them. Now you say that no, they have no personality? This seems Rules as Selectively Beneficial. :smallconfused:
Read above, I'm in agreement that the whole 'illusion made of ice' thing means it has what appears to be your personality, but lacks a soul or driving force behind the curtain. Either way though, even if it's the far more morally horrific version of being basically a lobotomised version of you, it's still designated as friendly. The personality part isn't the important bit, the instructions are.

Mmkay. Tell me where I can find exactly what friendly means, and rules that tell me where the freed simulacrum can't decide to erase those rules from the chain it created, then.
I don't need to define friendly for you, for the same reason you can't tell me exactly where I can find the rules on what being dead means - the book never specifies that I can't keep walking around and casting spells after I'm dead, but pretending you don't know what words like 'friendly' or 'dead' mean is going to get books thrown at you. And there is no rule that says a simulacrum can't do that, just like there's no rule stating it doesn't suddenly explode if somebody says the word 'Tuesday' - if the rules indicate something, you can't just decide the opposite must be true simply because the rules don't say it isn't.

Thank you! I aim to amuse and offer interpretations for other DMs to consider at their table.
Not interpretations, house rules. I don't mind people who have different views, but when they go against the rules they're house rules and should be acknowledged as such so other readers aren't deceived.

I did explicitly say that this is how I'd adjudicate the situation. I never presented this as Rules as Written, I'd presented this as a ruling that DMs could use to keep effects as written and present unexpected problems to players who tried something along these lines.
They can't keep the effects as written though, everything you've suggested is against RAW. Which is fine, every DM changes things and altering how simulacrum works is probably a good idea, but they're 'unexpected problems' because you've just changed how the rules work without telling anyone.

Lines

2016-02-25, 02:35 AM

Which is also a good argument for your simulacra counting as you for the purpose of casting spells like Simulacra or Wish. It's not a person; it's not real in any meaningful sense. It's just a proxy for you.

Yes, it probably is (seriously, while that's my interpretation too there's no actual ruling either way, it could be fully conscious). But that still doesn't mean it should burn you out - it's using its own spell slots, and wish is going to wrack its body, not yours.

Indeed. The fault of the spell lies not in Wish, but the spell-that-shall-not-be-named. If it wasn't for that one, we could move beyond the same strategy that has been discussed to death...
No, the fault lies with wish, too. The chance of permanently and with absolutely no recourse taking away the caster's best spell is ridiculously harsh, far worse than costing 5000xp to cast or other penalties it's had before, so people naturally look for a way around it. If your medicine costs ten dollars you'll pay for it, if it costs a million dollars you'll try to find a way of getting it without paying - the more ridiculous the cost, the more players search for a way to not pay it.

Lvl 2 Expert

2016-02-25, 02:42 AM

Just to be clear he doesn't want it now at lvl 5. He wants to make it like an epic quest for ingredients and what not. He also knows that he won't get it till like lvl 17.

So he wants his character arc to be "guy tries to get the power to always strike true", basically?

Well, that's what wish is for, for giving someone epic rewards at the end of their gruelling quest, isn't it?

He has to fluff it better, sure, and personally I'd say it's a rather boring buff, removing one of the more interesting game mechanics completely, but the power level itself should not be a problem, as apparently you already approved him getting a wish. If you don't want people to get impossible stuff, don't let them have a wish.

Segev

2016-02-25, 10:14 AM

Which is also a good argument for your simulacra counting as you for the purpose of casting spells like Simulacra or Wish. It's not a person; it's not real in any meaningful sense. It's just a proxy for you.
You can certainly make the argument, but I think it less strong than you indicate. Let us consider two examples to indicate why:

1. You create a simulacrum of another 17th-level wizard who knows wish. This is an illusion you've created, but it is an illusion of somebody else. Is it a proxy for you or for him? Who gets "burned out" when it casts wish to create a +4 Sword Of Slaying Everything Except Squid? (For added complication, what if you can't even cast wish, yourself, but you are a 14th level sorcerer who knows simulacrum and has a 20th level wizard buddy who does know wish?)

2. You successfully use dominate on a caster able to cast wish. He is now a proxy for your will, forced to make that wish exactly as you compel him to. There is no question, under the rules, who risks being burned out of having wish ever work again, despite him having no volition whatsoever.

In short, the illusion being "proxy" for you doesn't mean it's using your spell slots, your own capabilities, or anything of the sort. It has illusory versions of all of those. Illusory versions real enough to have real effects (because magic), but distinct and separate instances.

Vogonjeltz

2016-02-25, 12:04 PM

That's why you have your simulacrum do it for you.

12 hours and 1500 gold is a fair price to pay for permanent resistance to a stat. And by your 'cannot become more powerful' logic, the simulacrum can't use those spells to buff itself either.

Right, I was noting that the simulacrum is prohibited from using Wish for virtually any purpose by the power clause.

Segev

2016-02-25, 12:14 PM

RickAllison

2016-02-25, 12:37 PM

Segev

2016-02-25, 12:40 PM

JoeJ

2016-02-25, 01:44 PM

Honestly, I'm okay with the 1500 gp cost plus an hour cast time plus a high-level spell slot to get a non-spellcopy wish.

But then, I also agree that the chance of permanently burning your wishing ability out is obnoxious and poor design.

Especially since it can happen to a Sorcerer or Bard, who now has permanently lost a spell known!

It's only bad design if you assume that high level PCs should have a once per day automatic win button. If you think of it instead as the last ditch Hail Mary play to save the universe after everything else has failed, it's fine. The character is most likely going to retire after that adventure anyway, so losing the ability to cast Wish again is a reasonable risk.

SharkForce

2016-02-25, 02:16 PM

would you settle for "permanently loses the ability to cast wish except to duplicate a lower-level spell"?

UberMagus

2016-02-25, 06:36 PM

The thing is, in this scenario, they're casting Wish to duplicate the Simulacrum spell with no time or material cost. The simulacrum appears, acts on their initiative count, and uses the unsafe version of Wish, with no risk to the user, because it's the Simulacrum that would burn out its wishcasting. Oh, and the simulacrum also acts as a disposable spell battery of 5-8th level spells in the same encounter to boot.

What part of this is clever or a fair use of resources?

Except, since you used your 9th level spell to create the Simulacrum, wouldn't he be created with the 9th level slot expended?

UberMagus

2016-02-25, 06:41 PM

I've always liked that idea that category 2 and 3 wishes act as beacons for the various divines and great forces of the world because it fundamentally alters it. As a DM, I would let the player pull the Simulacrum/Wish abuse, but I'd still roll the chance to lose the power. When the simulacrum loses its ability to cast the spell, the powers-that-be will find their own ways to penalize those who would seek to skirt the traditional bounds of mortal power. Eventually, every Wish acts contrary to what he would like. Even casting Wish to copy another spell might find the replacement going awry in some way. Pissing off eternal and eldritch entities seems like a fitting punishment for altering the very fabric of reality, and would make for some awesome story hooks!

All that does, in my opinion, is seriously hamper Wish to the point of not being worth taking over other 9th level spells...
You might as well remove the spell, at that point.

It's only bad design if you assume that high level PCs should have a once per day automatic win button. If you think of it instead as the last ditch Hail Mary play to save the universe after everything else has failed, it's fine. The character is most likely going to retire after that adventure anyway, so losing the ability to cast Wish again is a reasonable risk.

I don't know that Wish is an "automatic win button", really. The kind of threats a 17th or 18th level party are going up against are gonna be able to handle a Wish. If not, they aren't powerful enough to be thrown at that party...

RickAllison

2016-02-25, 06:45 PM

All that does, in my opinion, is seriously hamper Wish to the point of not being worth taking over other 9th level spells...
You might as well remove the spell, at that point.

The only people affected by it are those who abuse Wish + Simulacrum. Everyone who uses it the standard way (so duplicating a spell or taking the risk of losing Wish) wouldn't ever have to worry about it, and indeed would never know that was something that would happen. Twisting the realm about your finger tends to produce some nasty enemies...

JoeJ

2016-02-25, 06:51 PM

I don't know that Wish is an "automatic win button", really. The kind of threats a 17th or 18th level party are going up against are gonna be able to handle a Wish. If not, they aren't powerful enough to be thrown at that party...

A type 3 wish, the kind that goes beyond the specific effects given in the spell description, can pretty much trivialize anything unless the DM intentionally nerfs it.

CantigThimble

2016-02-25, 07:15 PM

A type 3 wish, the kind that goes beyond the specific effects given in the spell description, can pretty much trivialize anything unless the DM intentionally nerfs it.

Trivialize anything except the serious side effects of actually trying to use a type 3 wish that is.

Segev

2016-02-25, 07:34 PM

Yeah, remember that the "type 3" wish is explicitly in the "DMs, have fun making up drawbacks and side effects and otherwise twisting these" territory for which the spell has been infamous since 1e AD&D (if not longer).

joaber

2016-02-25, 08:58 PM

-"I have advantage in all my attack for the rest of my life!"

-"Done!"

Next fight, first attack with advantage, than dead.

or

first attack with advantage, then he stuck in infinite time looping.

SharkForce

2016-02-26, 02:18 AM

-"I have advantage in all my attack for the rest of my life!"

-"Done!"

Next fight, first attack with advantage, than dead.

or

first attack with advantage, then he stuck in infinite time looping.

nah, you just make him completely unable to attack unless he has advantage on the attack :)

Lines

2016-02-26, 04:13 AM

A type 3 wish, the kind that goes beyond the specific effects given in the spell description, can pretty much trivialize anything unless the DM intentionally nerfs it.
Why would the DM need to nerf it? A type 3 wish is specifically supposed to come with unintended side effects, consequences or downsides.

The only people affected by it are those who abuse Wish + Simulacrum. Everyone who uses it the standard way (so duplicating a spell or taking the risk of losing Wish) wouldn't ever have to worry about it, and indeed would never know that was something that would happen. Twisting the realm about your finger tends to produce some nasty enemies...
Yeah, that sounds like a good plot hook. Players do something entirely reasonable that doesn't hurt anyone, powers-that-be get mad and try to wreck them for it, now the players are being targeted by something very powerful that they're entirely justified in killing. Side note, it's not abuse - I'd call it abuse if wish had a reasonable cost (if you want a baseline, 5000xp is good), but the cost is goddamn stupid so trying to find a way around paying it is entirely natural.

would you settle for "permanently loses the ability to cast wish except to duplicate a lower-level spell"?
Yes. That is much better, permanently losing your most useful spell is an idiotic penalty. Though instead of a 1/3 chance to lose it, I'd change it to once you've wish as a category 2 or 3 a total of 3 times you permanently lose the ability to do so again.

UberMagus

2016-02-26, 08:41 AM

Yes. That is much better, permanently losing your most useful spell is an idiotic penalty. Though instead of a 1/3 chance to lose it, I'd change it to once you've wish as a category 2 or 3 a total of 3 times you permanently lose the ability to do so again.

I actually REALLY like this one. Keep the exhaustion and crippling side effect, but change the "lose forever" to this! Such a good change!

Lines

2016-02-26, 08:52 AM

I actually REALLY like this one. Keep the exhaustion and crippling side effect, but change the "lose forever" to this! Such a good change!

It's almost like there's a 3 wishes theme they could have used but didn't for some reason.

Dalebert

2016-02-26, 10:11 AM

... he suffers all the drawbacks of a hyperactive immune system.

I'm experiencing that right now with the emergence of Spring pollen. Can confirm that it REALLY sucks. Definitely a level of perpetual exhaustion among other things.

joaber

2016-02-26, 10:29 AM

nah, you just make him completely unable to attack unless he has advantage on the attack :)

sounds good to me.

Segev

2016-02-26, 11:16 AM

I'm experiencing that right now with the emergence of Spring pollen. Can confirm that it REALLY sucks. Definitely a level of perpetual exhaustion among other things.

Off-topic, but I've found flo-nase to work really well on that. I have severe hay fever when I'm not on it, but it is an immunosuppressant that really kills my allergic reactions. I suggest you try it if you haven't. It used to be prescription-only, but it's been over-the-counter at least here in Texas for the last year or so.

On-topic, the "3 wishes" idea is a neat one. If you want to be a little more lenient (and open up the mythic space a little), you could actually make it that any one person can only have 3 "type 2 or 3" wishes granted for them before the spell doesn't work anymore.

Now the mage can grant himself 3 of them, and 3 for each party member. And 3 for anybody who seeks him out and convinces him to.

And the guy who gets a wish early in his career can only get 2 more when he's higher level and meets a mage who knows it. Etc.

UberMagus

2016-02-26, 11:21 AM

On-topic, the "3 wishes" idea is a neat one. If you want to be a little more lenient (and open up the mythic space a little), you could actually make it that any one person can only have 3 "type 2 or 3" wishes granted for them before the spell doesn't work anymore.

Now the mage can grant himself 3 of them, and 3 for each party member. And 3 for anybody who seeks him out and convinces him to.

And the guy who gets a wish early in his career can only get 2 more when he's higher level and meets a mage who knows it. Etc.

Oof. That seems a bit TOO nice. It let's you cast type 2 or 3s as many times as possible, so long as people keep coming. Heck, you could manipulate people to make wishes that benefit you as well. I like the "3 type 2/3s and done" way more.

Vogonjeltz

2016-02-26, 04:55 PM

It has always been clear from the context of the whole sentence, in every edition where a variant on it has existed, that simulacrum only means that it can't gain levels, learn new skills, or otherwise achieve level-based rewards in excess of what it has at creation, when it says that it cannot "improve itself." It absolutely can benefit from buffs, a better magic sword, or what-have-you.

As with so many other spell changes, the only edition that counts is the current one. Bringing other editions into the mix simply muddies the waters towards confusion as those alterations were made specifically to clarify and reduce the often massive latitude that players had with the most powerful and free-form spells. Simulacrum is just another example in that trend.

The simulacrum can't learn or gain power. Gaining levels/restoring spell slots are mere examples of the rule, not the rule per se.

Segev

2016-02-26, 05:15 PM

As with so many other spell changes, the only edition that counts is the current one. Bringing other editions into the mix simply muddies the waters towards confusion as those alterations were made specifically to clarify and reduce the often massive latitude that players had with the most powerful and free-form spells. Simulacrum is just another example in that trend.

The simulacrum can't learn or gain power. Gaining levels/restoring spell slots are mere examples of the rule, not the rule per se.

In this case, attempting to claim that I'm bringing in the other editions to back up a point and then leaning on their rules is erroneous. The prior editions are only evidence in that they all use more or less the same language as this one. In all cases, "inability to get stronger" is in a context of not being able to learn. This is equally true for 5e. So, examining 5e in a vacuum, its simulacrum is not trying to use "get stronger" in any context other than "can't be taught anything, can't gain levels, can't get new feats or non-externally-raised stats." It means they can't gain levels. It does not mean they can't use magic items which make them stronger than they were originally, nor that they can't benefit from buff spells, nor that they can't use tools, nor that they can't recover from penalties inflicted later. Just that they can't learn new things and gain more levels.

Not being able to regain spell slots is a separate rule, unrelated to the "can't get stronger" clause. Just as "can only be healed in a lab for 100 gp/hp" is not part of nor affected by "can't get stronger."

Context is everything, here. The thing can't get stronger so it can't get more levels. That's all that means.

If you want to rule otherwise, go ahead, but it's a pretty cross-eyed reading of the rules to claim it's the RAW, in my opinion.

JoeJ

2016-02-29, 12:07 AM

I simply banned the spell Simulacrum. I can't think of a single use for the spell that makes my game any better. It's abusive in almost every application.

I sure can:

- The party raids an outpost loyal to the BBEG. Locked in the dungeon they find somebody who looks exactly like one of the PCs. At that moment, that PC attacks and tries to kill the other party members, only to dissolve into a pile of snow when they are defeated (this was all arranged with that player ahead of time, obviously). How long has the simulacrum been feeding all the party's secrets to the BBEG? Has anybody else been replaced?

- In the middle of a diplomatic crisis, a major NPC is assassinated. To everyone's shock, the body dissolves into a pile of snow. Who was the simulacrum working for, and who else might not be real?

- The PCs confront and kill the BBEG after a very tough fight, only to see the body dissolve into snow.

I'd ban Wish long before I'd ever get rid of Simulacrum.

RickAllison

2016-02-29, 12:14 AM

I sure can:

- The party raids an outpost loyal to the BBEG. Locked in the dungeon they find somebody who looks exactly like one of the PCs. At that moment, that PC attacks and tries to kill the other party members, only to dissolve into a pile of snow when they are defeated (this was all arranged with that player ahead of time, obviously). How long has the simulacrum been feeding all the party's secrets to the BBEG? Has anybody else been replaced?

- In the middle of a diplomatic crisis, a major NPC is assassinated. To everyone's shock, the body dissolves into a pile of snow. Who was the simulacrum working for, and who else might not be real?

- The PCs confront and kill the BBEG after a very tough fight, only to see the body dissolve into snow.

I'd ban Wish long before I'd ever get rid of Simulacrum.

So what I'm seeing is that every interesting and fair use of Simulacrum stems from it being used against the party by an NPC. So just ban it for PCs?

JoeJ

2016-02-29, 12:24 AM

So what I'm seeing is that every interesting and fair use of Simulacrum stems from it being used against the party by an NPC. So just ban it for PCs?

Without adding Wish, I can't really think of a use of Simulacrum that isn't interesting and fair. But ban whatever you want in your game.

RickAllison

2016-02-29, 12:28 AM

Without adding Wish, I can't really think of a use of Simulacrum that isn't interesting and fair. But ban whatever you want in your game.

Well you stated several reasons why Simulacrum could be used to make a game better, but every one of those uses was the spell being used by BBEGs or other NPCs. You didn't give a single use by PCs that actually made the game better. Thus, my comment that by your examples there wasn't actually a reason to give it to PCs.

JoeJ

2016-02-29, 12:39 AM

Well you stated several reasons why Simulacrum could be used to make a game better, but every one of those uses was the spell being used by BBEGs or other NPCs. You didn't give a single use by PCs that actually made the game better. Thus, my comment that by your examples there wasn't actually a reason to give it to PCs.

I tend to look at things as a DM first. But I'm still failing to see any reason not to give it to PCs.

RickAllison

2016-02-29, 12:54 AM

I tend to look at things as a DM first. But I'm still failing to see any reason not to give it to PCs.

Aside from it allowing a Wizard or Bard to double their spell slots and concentration (i.e. two of the main limitations for spellcasters)? Disregarding the Wish abuse (since that is a point against either, so it's moot), it means that for 1500 GP, the caster is able to literally double his actions. One of the most powerful features of the fighter is the Action Surge which lets him do once or twice per short rest what Simulacrum does until he is Dispelled.

In short, the main reason to not give it to a player is because once you do he ceases to have a PC. When a player has Simulacrum, he has two PCs. If he makes a Simulacrum of the party's fighter, the wizard is now literally both himself and a lower HP version of the fighter. That does seem like a very good reason not to give it to any PC. Being able to temporarily replace any PC by spending 1500 GP and using a piece of them seems like a very bad thing.

JoeJ

2016-02-29, 01:39 AM

Aside from it allowing a Wizard or Bard to double their spell slots and concentration (i.e. two of the main limitations for spellcasters)? Disregarding the Wish abuse (since that is a point against either, so it's moot), it means that for 1500 GP, the caster is able to literally double his actions. One of the most powerful features of the fighter is the Action Surge which lets him do once or twice per short rest what Simulacrum does until he is Dispelled.

In short, the main reason to not give it to a player is because once you do he ceases to have a PC. When a player has Simulacrum, he has two PCs. If he makes a Simulacrum of the party's fighter, the wizard is now literally both himself and a lower HP version of the fighter. That does seem like a very good reason not to give it to any PC. Being able to temporarily replace any PC by spending 1500 GP and using a piece of them seems like a very bad thing.

A 13th level wizard should be able to do cool things. If they want to spend 12 hours and 1500 gp, taking the risk of losing it if somebody casts Dispel Magic, I don't see any reason they shouldn't.

And while the wizard spends 1500 gp to get one copy of the fighter, the fighter (or anybody else) can spend 1400 gp to hire a platoon of 50 mercenaries for two weeks.

RickAllison

2016-02-29, 01:59 AM

A 13th level wizard should be able to do cool things. If they want to spend 12 hours and 1500 gp, taking the risk of losing it if somebody casts Dispel Magic, I don't see any reason they shouldn't.

And while the wizard spends 1500 gp to get one copy of the fighter, the fighter (or anybody else) can spend 1400 gp to hire a platoon of 50 mercenaries for two weeks.

Indeed, but everyone can do that. Simulacrum lets two classes completely flaunt three limits that are built to balance out the classes: class feature resources, concentration, and action economy. While everyone can hire those 50 mercenaries, they are ultimately up to the DM to control. They are vulnerable to numerous effects, are not inherently loyal, and have low HP, but the only weaknesses of a simulacrum is the lowered HP (still higher than the mercenaries) and the weakness to Dispel (which can be nullified more easily with Counterspell which both the Wizard and Bard can be very good at).

In summary, while banning Simulacrum for PCs is an extreme step, there are more arguments in favor of its removal then exist for keeping it at the expense of Wish. I would be happy to hear and respond to counter-arguments, but you have to actually make them. While Rule of Cool is definitely a thing, it should NOT be allowed as the sole reason for a Wizard to break several of the built-in limits to their power.

Cazero

2016-02-29, 02:38 AM

I sure can:

- The party raids an outpost loyal to the BBEG. Locked in the dungeon they find somebody who looks exactly like one of the PCs. At that moment, that PC attacks and tries to kill the other party members, only to dissolve into a pile of snow when they are defeated (this was all arranged with that player ahead of time, obviously). How long has the simulacrum been feeding all the party's secrets to the BBEG? Has anybody else been replaced?

- In the middle of a diplomatic crisis, a major NPC is assassinated. To everyone's shock, the body dissolves into a pile of snow. Who was the simulacrum working for, and who else might not be real?

- The PCs confront and kill the BBEG after a very tough fight, only to see the body dissolve into snow.

I'd ban Wish long before I'd ever get rid of Simulacrum.

There aren't any ritual to destroy the world in the PHB, yet Evil cults keep trying to cast those. What you described here is Simulacrum as DM fiated for a plot point and doesn't need/deserve a mechanics oriented spell entry in any book. There are more spells in existence than the Holy RAW List.

JoeJ

2016-02-29, 02:45 AM

Indeed, but everyone can do that. Simulacrum lets two classes completely flaunt three limits that are built to balance out the classes: class feature resources, concentration, and action economy. While everyone can hire those 50 mercenaries, they are ultimately up to the DM to control. They are vulnerable to numerous effects, are not inherently loyal, and have low HP, but the only weaknesses of a simulacrum is the lowered HP (still higher than the mercenaries) and the weakness to Dispel (which can be nullified more easily with Counterspell which both the Wizard and Bard can be very good at).

In summary, while banning Simulacrum for PCs is an extreme step, there are more arguments in favor of its removal then exist for keeping it at the expense of Wish. I would be happy to hear and respond to counter-arguments, but you have to actually make them.

The simulacrum is also ultimately up to the DM to control; it's a spell effect, not a PC. It has far fewer hit points than the mercenaries (the maximum possible for a simulacrum of a 20th level barbarian with a 24 Constitution is 190 vs. a total of 550 for the troops), and it costs 100 gp each to recover those hp. The vulnerability to Dispel Magic makes it also vulnerable to all kinds of Save or Suck spells that could be dispelled if they were on any other target. In a dungeon, the inability to recover hit points means there's a very good chance that a simulacrum won't even live through the day, so really, the number of mercenaries to compare it with is not 50 but 750.

Of course Simulacrum breaks those limits you listed. It's supposed to. But it doesn't break them anywhere near as hard as simply hiring a bunch of henchmen, which any character can do at any level as long as they have the money. Those "limits" simply aren't very important to the game.

While Rule of Cool is definitely a thing, it should NOT be allowed as the sole reason for a Wizard to break several of the built-in limits to their power.

What? If it makes the game more fun, of course it should.

RickAllison

2016-02-29, 03:14 AM

The simulacrum is also ultimately up to the DM to control; it's a spell effect, not a PC. It has far fewer hit points than the mercenaries (the maximum possible for a simulacrum of a 20th level barbarian with a 24 Constitution is 190 vs. a total of 550 for the troops), and it costs 100 gp each to recover those hp. The vulnerability to Dispel Magic makes it also vulnerable to all kinds of Save or Suck spells that could be dispelled if they were on any other target. In a dungeon, the inability to recover hit points means there's a very good chance that a simulacrum won't even live through the day, so really, the number of mercenaries to compare it with is not 50 but 750.

Of course Simulacrum breaks those limits you listed. It's supposed to. But it doesn't break them anywhere near as hard as simply hiring a bunch of henchmen, which any character can do at any level as long as they have the money. Those "limits" simply aren't very important to the game.

What? If it makes the game more fun, of course it should.

Actually, it's not up to the DM to control, not even remotely.

It obeys your spoken commands, moving
and acting in accordance with your wishes and acting
on your turn in combat.
It literally obeys whatever the caster says, rather than the DM being able to require checks to order them like the mercenaries. You say those mercenaries have hundreds of HP, but that's adding them all together. AoE effects drastically reduce the effective HP of the mercenaries relative to a solitary target like the simulacrum. Fireball goes from dealing 8d6 damage to (assuming only 1/3 of the spaces actually contain mercenaries, which might be an understatement in a dungeon setting), that goes from 28 average damage to 448 average. At least half of the mercenaries hit are likely to die (again, probably an understatement at the levels we are discussing), so you are down to 42 with one spell that a 5th-level PC can lob out.

As for making the game more fun, you need to ask who it makes the game more fun for. The wizard? Hell yeah! He is excited because he can go from being balanced with the rest of the party to having twice the firepower at a cost that, while not trivial, still is manageable to maintain for a character of his level. Is it fun for the DM? Probably fine, he can just make the encounters a little tougher to compensate, but it doesn't affect him too much. Is it fun for the other players? That depends. If the caster duplicated himself, he has gone from balanced to far more powerful than the rest of the party individually, but they still have their purposes. The rogue still has his sneaking and skills... Wait, the simulacrum can be of him, too! Why need to cut the rogue in on the loot? This lackey of the wizard can completely and totally replace him. With the right spells up, the wizard can control him from afar and literally have the rogue's exact stats except for half health. For 1500 GP, the wizard can all but invalidate a fellow PC. Is that fun? Not if you find your entire build replaceable by one spell.

EDIT: Fun thing I just realized. The level 20 onion druid in the party? Simulacrum can copy him. At that point, the only weakness the Simulacrum has is Dispel Magic, but I think the ability to literally gain control of a second PC who can just endlessly spam Mammoth form to cover for his low HP is a fairly broken trade for that weakness.

Dalebert

2016-02-29, 09:45 AM

Ask his exact wording because "advantage" and "disadvantage" are metagame terms. They should not be terms that characters use in the same context. Not saying they'd never say those words; just not in the context of the mechanics of the game. So insist that he use wording that's appropriate and then respond, e.g. "I want to always have the advantage in combat." You know the common expression "You have me at a disadvantage."? It means someone knows your name and you don't know theirs. So have the wish grant him the ability to immediately know his opponent's name as soon as the fight starts. Meanwhile, the enemy forgets his name if they knew it.

The funny thing is it wouldn't be a completely useless ability. He'd be able to identify people just by attacking him, maybe even something as mild as a slap to the face. If a cloaked figure is running away, he can fire an arrow at them. Even if he misses, he now knows the name and has something to go on.

SharkForce

2016-02-29, 10:08 AM

a wizard (or bard) is unlikely to be able to afford to spam simulacrum until they get wish, actually. it's 1500 gp for a copy that doesn't recover spell slots or hit points (without spending a lot of money for HP, that is). now, if you do in fact have an onion druid in the party, then sure you probably only ever need one simulacrum (or at least, only one in a very long while). most people don't have an onion druid in the party though, so that's generally not a concern (and would be better fixed by fixing onion druid).

perhaps a more frightening use is to make a simulacrum (which has your level) and then the next day true polymorph it into something with a CR equal to your level.

in any event, by the time a caster gets access to simulacrum, most non-casters aren't getting abilities to write home about in general any more. simulacrum is simply one thing on a large list of things that casters start to become able to do that non-casters generally struggle with.

JoeJ

2016-02-29, 10:40 AM

Actually, it's not up to the DM to control, not even remotely.

It certainly is under the DM's control. The caster can give and order that the simulacrum will attempt to carry out, but exactly how it goes about that and what happens as a result is not under the player's control.

It's hard for me to imagine the rogue's player feeling invalidated by a naked, half hit point copy that doesn't heal and goes away if it's hit by a Dispel Magic. If you want to ban the spell in your game, that's fine with me. But I don't see any reason to ban it in mine, and a lot of reasons not to. For example:

- The party captures one of the BBEG's lieutenants. A simulacrum will answer all their questions without resistance, and can then be sent back to the BBEG as a sleeper agent.

- A simulacrum can guard the party's home base while they're off adventuring.

- You can send a simulacrum off on a minor but important side quest and avoid having to split the party.

- When the princess (or whomever) is in danger, you can use a simulacrum of her as a decoy while you sneak the real one away to safety.

- Send a simulacrum to attack the BBEG's fortress as a diversion while the party infiltrates somewhere else.

JellyPooga

2016-02-29, 11:11 AM

It certainly is under the DM's control. The caster can give and order that the simulacrum will attempt to carry out, but exactly how it goes about that and what happens as a result is not under the player's control.

Indeed. The Simulacrum is friendly to you (and those you designate) and obeys your spoken commands, but that's it. It's not an automaton.

If you've seen the movie Tron:Legacy, Clu and his "perfect society" is a perfect example of how an order given to a Simulacrum could go wrong and that's someone giving a Simulacrum of themselves an order, let alone the possibilities when it's your friend, a mere travelling companion or, worse, an enemy.

For example; you get your hands on your nemesis' toe-nail clippings and build yourself a Simulacrum of him. Your nemesis is the worst kind of monster; ruthless, uncaring and without sympathy. A powerful warrior without peer. You think having his Simulacra around your Tower is handy; he's friendly to you and obeys your orders to the letter. You find a guilty pleasure telling him to do menial tasks like cleaning the toilets and sweeping. One day, not really thinking, you blithely ask him to go and fetch the groceries and "oh, sort out the bill with the smith"...the next thing you know, you have a desperate Sending spell ringing in your ears; it's the mayor. The town is ablaze, the smith is dead and the market has been raided. You hear the door open downstairs; the Simulacra is standing there, he has the groceries, stinks of smoke and is covered in blood. He greets you warmly and hands over the groceries "You won't have to worry about paying the smith back...".

RickAllison

2016-02-29, 11:27 AM

It certainly is under the DM's control. The caster can give and order that the simulacrum will attempt to carry out, but exactly how it goes about that and what happens as a result is not under the player's control.

It's hard for me to imagine the rogue's player feeling invalidated by a naked, half hit point copy that doesn't heal and goes away if it's hit by a Dispel Magic. If you want to ban the spell in your game, that's fine with me. But I don't see any reason to ban it in mine, and a lot of reasons not to. For example:

- The party captures one of the BBEG's lieutenants. A simulacrum will answer all their questions without resistance, and can then be sent back to the BBEG as a sleeper agent.

- A simulacrum can guard the party's home base while they're off adventuring.

- You can send a simulacrum off on a minor but important side quest and avoid having to split the party.

- When the princess (or whomever) is in danger, you can use a simulacrum of her as a decoy while you sneak the real one away to safety.

- Send a simulacrum to attack the BBEG's fortress as a diversion while the party infiltrates somewhere else.

Finally, you actually give reasons why it could make the game better to give it to the PCs rather than simply stating it and not supporting your statements. Took long enough to do so. Before this point, the thread provided a laundry list of reasons NOT to include the spell, but no real reasons why they SHOULD include it. I'm not particularly averse to the spell, but it is kind of hard to justify when there are excellent reasons not to do so.

I do have a question about the spell, however. It states that one doesn't regain expended spell slots, but it says nothing about other resources. That means a simulacrum can still regain Action Surges, superiority dice, ki points, Bardic Inspiration, and other non-spell slot resources, correct?

JellyPooga

2016-02-29, 11:30 AM

I do have a question about the spell, however. It states that one doesn't regain expended spell slots, but it says nothing about other resources. That means a simulacrum can still regain Action Surges, superiority dice, ki points, Bardic Inspiration, and other non-spell slot resources, correct?

An interesting line of reasoning for Simulacra of Sorcerers...

JoeJ

2016-02-29, 11:54 AM

Finally, you actually give reasons why it could make the game better to give it to the PCs rather than simply stating it and not supporting your statements. Took long enough to do so. Before this point, the thread provided a laundry list of reasons NOT to include the spell, but no real reasons why they SHOULD include it. I'm not particularly averse to the spell, but it is kind of hard to justify when there are excellent reasons not to do so.

I'm not under any obligation to support my subjective opinion that something is fun, nor can I imagine any way to do so. What you consider a valid reason to ban the spell seems to me to be a complete non-issue, so even if I couldn't think of anything fun to do with it, I wouldn't feel a need to take the option away from the players.

I do have a question about the spell, however. It states that one doesn't regain expended spell slots, but it says nothing about other resources. That means a simulacrum can still regain Action Surges, superiority dice, ki points, Bardic Inspiration, and other non-spell slot resources, correct?

RAI is probably that they don't recharge, since hit points and spell slots don't, and that's how I'd rule.

RickAllison

2016-02-29, 12:03 PM

I'm not under any obligation to support my subjective opinion that something is fun, nor can I imagine any way to do so. What you consider a valid reason to ban the spell seems to me to be a complete non-issue, so even if I couldn't think of anything fun to do with it, I wouldn't feel a need to take the option away from the players.

RAI is probably that they don't recharge, since hit points and spell slots don't, and that's how I'd rule.

Well, that is kind of the point of a debate/discussion. If it's simply everyone yelling out an opinion without any sort of backing or reasoning, it becomes exactly that: a list of opinions. If you chime in on a discussion of Wish and Simulacrum and state that you would ban the former over the latter, you should expect to be questioned on it, just like everyone who states they would ban Simulacrum over Wish should expect to be questioned on that. It's not hostile, it's a legitimate discussion so any or all parties can gain a new perspective on the issue. I like the creative uses of Simulacrum, but it has nemerous balancing issues. If someone sounds like they have ideas that eliminate the balancing problems, I want to hear them, but it goes nowhere if no-one elaborates.

I figured that was RAI, but I was wondering if any errata or Sage Advice had come out regarding it.

Segev

2016-02-29, 12:15 PM

Yeah, a simulacrum of a sorcerer does regain sorcery points. Which can be transformed into spell slots. It's not regaining a spell slot: it's creating a new one.

In one weird twist that makes it more useful than otherwise, Mystic Arcana are not spell slots, and don't cost spell slots to use. So a simulacrum of a 20th level Warlock can use his highest-level spells 1/day, just as if he were not a simulacrum. (Normally, the fact they're not spell slots makes this a greatly nerfed ability.)

JellyPooga

2016-02-29, 12:18 PM

So a simulacrum of a 20th level Warlock can use his highest-level spells 1/day

Arguably, a Simulacra of a Warlock should probably not have any Warlock Class features...after all, those powers are granted by a Patron and I don't see a Patron granting those powers to a mere facsimile of the one that made the Pact.

I'm totally not backed up by any rules on this, of course!

Segev

2016-02-29, 12:27 PM

Arguably, a Simulacra of a Warlock should probably not have any Warlock Class features...after all, those powers are granted by a Patron and I don't see a Patron granting those powers to a mere facsimile of the one that made the Pact.

I'm totally not backed up by any rules on this, of course!

If you follow that logic at your table, druids and clerics make lousy simulacra, too. As do paladins and probably rangers. And totem-barbarians.

I think - if the logic of the RAW bothers you - it's useful to go back to an earlier point: the simulacrum is an illusion. An illusion which is incredibly potent and can do very real things, but its power is entirely illusory. Just like its mind isn't really there - it's an illusion of a mind which presents outwardly in all ways just like a real mind would, but with no "there" there inside it - the magics, the class features, the divine powers and pact abilities are all illusions. They are not granted by those patrons; they're illusory fakes.

Perhaps the power is, itself, stolen through the blood/hair/whatever that's used to make the simulacrum in the first place. That's where the fuel for illusory abilities the wizard or sorcerer could never have brought to bear, himself, comes from.

JoeJ

2016-02-29, 12:35 PM

Well, that is kind of the point of a debate/discussion. If it's simply everyone yelling out an opinion without any sort of backing or reasoning, it becomes exactly that: a list of opinions. If you chime in on a discussion of Wish and Simulacrum and state that you would ban the former over the latter, you should expect to be questioned on it, just like everyone who states they would ban Simulacrum over Wish should expect to be questioned on that. It's not hostile, it's a legitimate discussion so any or all parties can gain a new perspective on the issue. I like the creative uses of Simulacrum, but it has nemerous balancing issues. If someone sounds like they have ideas that eliminate the balancing problems, I want to hear them, but it goes nowhere if no-one elaborates.

I can't suggest a solution to a "problem" that does not appear to me to be a problem in the first place. As far as balance goes, Simulacrum is just another way to get a minion. By the time the PCs get to 13th level, I would expect that any of them who want a bunch of minions will already have them. There are plenty of ways to do that, including just paying people to work for you. (For the price of one Simulacrum, you could hire a small army. Or buy 7 elephants and still have enough left over to hire their handlers.)

Wish, OTOH, seems to me to be cheapened by allowing PCs to cast it as a spell. It should be something special that you get by doing a major favor for a djinni prince, or finding an ancient artifact, not a spell that you can cast once a day.

JellyPooga

2016-02-29, 02:15 PM

Perhaps the power is, itself, stolen through the blood/hair/whatever that's used to make the simulacrum in the first place. That's where the fuel for illusory abilities the wizard or sorcerer could never have brought to bear, himself, comes from.

Hmm...interesting point. It does kind of bug me that Simulacra is an Illusion though. I'm going wildly off topic here, I know, but it strikes me as less an illusion and more a transmutation. The whole "stealing power" thing makes a lot more sense (to me) that way. What purpose does the piece of the original serve if it's only an illusion?

If everything the Simulacra can do is a mere illusion, then should not the target of anything it can do get a save to disbelieve? If a Simulacra casts Magic Missile and the Simulacra is an illusion, then should not the Magic Missile it casts also be an illusion? If the Simulacra is a Transmutation effect, however, the power it wields is very real. It's not just an illusion of a magic missile; it's actually a magic missile.

Segev

2016-02-29, 02:31 PM

Hmm...interesting point. It does kind of bug me that Simulacra is an Illusion though. I'm going wildly off topic here, I know, but it strikes me as less an illusion and more a transmutation. The whole "stealing power" thing makes a lot more sense (to me) that way. What purpose does the piece of the original serve if it's only an illusion?It gives a template for the illusion. It provides the little bit of reality that makes the shadow-stuff real.

If everything the Simulacra can do is a mere illusion, then should not the target of anything it can do get a save to disbelieve? If a Simulacra casts Magic Missile and the Simulacra is an illusion, then should not the Magic Missile it casts also be an illusion? If the Simulacra is a Transmutation effect, however, the power it wields is very real. It's not just an illusion of a magic missile; it's actually a magic missile.You can disbelieve that it's really who it looks like, but in the end, it has their power infusing the shadow-stuff of its illusion, and that makes for real-enough effects.

You can make an argument for transmutation, but that's nto what it is. (As one who is playing an illusionist, I'm glad of it; I know I'll never get to level 17 and thus be able to do the shapeshifting simulacrum trick, but it's still fun to contemplate.)

SharkForce

2016-02-29, 08:48 PM

Hmm...interesting point. It does kind of bug me that Simulacra is an Illusion though. I'm going wildly off topic here, I know, but it strikes me as less an illusion and more a transmutation. The whole "stealing power" thing makes a lot more sense (to me) that way. What purpose does the piece of the original serve if it's only an illusion?

If everything the Simulacra can do is a mere illusion, then should not the target of anything it can do get a save to disbelieve? If a Simulacra casts Magic Missile and the Simulacra is an illusion, then should not the Magic Missile it casts also be an illusion? If the Simulacra is a Transmutation effect, however, the power it wields is very real. It's not just an illusion of a magic missile; it's actually a magic missile.

if it helps you to think of it this way, in earlier editions it took 3 spells to get the full effect; the first was an illusion (gave the form and the partial hit points and raw physical abilites), the second was necromancy (bestowed a spark of life into the target), and the third was wish (so basically whatever school you want ultimately, though the wish spell itself was conjuration/summoning, and gave the memories and class abilities of the target, if any). you could just stop at the first (which was the original simulacrum spell), but it didn't gain you much. but, ultimately, the finished product was very much the result of multiple spell schools.

Segev

2016-03-01, 01:14 AM

if it helps you to think of it this way, in earlier editions it took 3 spells to get the full effect; the first was an illusion (gave the form and the partial hit points and raw physical abilites), the second was necromancy (bestowed a spark of life into the target), and the third was wish (so basically whatever school you want ultimately, though the wish spell itself was conjuration/summoning, and gave the memories and class abilities of the target, if any). you could just stop at the first (which was the original simulacrum spell), but it didn't gain you much. but, ultimately, the finished product was very much the result of multiple spell schools.

What? Where do you get this from? I only have info as far back as 1e AD&D, but simulacrum was all that was needed back then (though, like editions 2 and 3, it was "half level" of the original, not merely half hit points; you were left to your own devices to figure out what "half level" meant in a lot of cases, which is probably why that was changed in 5e in the name of simplicity).

Lines

2016-03-01, 01:23 AM

JoeJ

2016-03-01, 01:34 AM

What? Where do you get this from? I only have info as far back as 1e AD&D, but simulacrum was all that was needed back then (though, like editions 2 and 3, it was "half level" of the original, not merely half hit points; you were left to your own devices to figure out what "half level" meant in a lot of cases, which is probably why that was changed in 5e in the name of simplicity).

The spell description in the PHB says that Simulacrum only creates the basic form as a zombie-like creature. You then need to cast Reincarnate to give it a "vital force" and Limited Wish to endow it with 40% - 65% of the original's personality and knowledge. The simulacrum will then have 20% - 50% of the original's level, but 51% - 60% of the original's hit points. Back then, it took a magic user and a druid working together to create a useful simulacrum of anything.

Segev

2016-03-01, 09:05 AM

What's unclear about half level? 3.5 explains how removing levels works, just reduce until you get to half (rounded down).That works for things primarily defined by class levels, absolutely. And there are rules for removing HD from monsters, including, for some elements, what to remove (e.g. feats and skill ranks). But what about where they have powers spelled out that are not clearly tied to their HD?

Does a simulacrum of a great wyrm get younger, or is it just a lower-HD great wyrm, retaining all spell-like abilities gained for age? Does it lose sorcerer levels, or not?

There are a number of other creatures which raise similar questions; the Formian Queen is a particularly interesting one. The RAW answer, I believe, in 3.5, is that they keep those powers, but it is arguable that they wouldn't...but how much do they lose? Half their effective sorcerer levels? What creature abilities doe they keep?

The spell description in the PHB says that Simulacrum only creates the basic form as a zombie-like creature. You then need to cast Reincarnate to give it a "vital force" and Limited Wish to endow it with 40% - 65% of the original's personality and knowledge. The simulacrum will then have 20% - 50% of the original's level, but 51% - 60% of the original's hit points. Back then, it took a magic user and a druid working together to create a useful simulacrum of anything.Huh. I'll have to dig out my book; I don't remember that. I will readily confess that I could be totally misremembering, though.

Lines

2016-03-01, 09:08 AM

That works for things primarily defined by class levels, absolutely. And there are rules for removing HD from monsters, including, for some elements, what to remove (e.g. feats and skill ranks). But what about where they have powers spelled out that are not clearly tied to their HD?

Does a simulacrum of a great wyrm get younger, or is it just a lower-HD great wyrm, retaining all spell-like abilities gained for age? Does it lose sorcerer levels, or not?

There are a number of other creatures which raise similar questions; the Formian Queen is a particularly interesting one. The RAW answer, I believe, in 3.5, is that they keep those powers, but it is arguable that they wouldn't...but how much do they lose? Half their effective sorcerer levels? What creature abilities doe they keep?

Hm. Yup, I was wrong, you're correct.

Segev

2016-03-01, 09:14 AM

Hm. Yup, I was wrong, you're correct.

To be fair, I only really know this off the top of my head because I played an epic-level sorcerer who was friends with a Formian Queen of whom he (with her permission) made a simulacrum. The simulacrum stayed polymorphed into a wyrmling brass dragon form and acted like a familiar, and we went with the interpretation of the RAW such that she had all 18 levels of sorcerer. Since it was an epic game, this wasn't too overpowered in comparison to anything else, but still...

SharkForce

2016-03-01, 02:48 PM

minor correction regarding the spell chain for simulacrum: at least in 2nd AD&D, wizards could cast reincarnation. no druid was required.

Vogonjeltz

2016-03-01, 07:52 PM

In this case, attempting to claim that I'm bringing in the other editions to back up a point and then leaning on their rules is erroneous. The prior editions are only evidence in that they all use more or less the same language as this one.

Then don't reference the other editions and how they did as if it were evidence if you aren't trying to use that as evidence.

In all cases, "inability to get stronger" is in a context of not being able to learn. This is equally true for 5e. So, examining 5e in a vacuum, its simulacrum is not trying to use "get stronger" in any context other than "can't be taught anything, can't gain levels, can't get new feats or non-externally-raised stats." It means they can't gain levels. It does not mean they can't use magic items which make them stronger than they were originally, nor that they can't benefit from buff spells, nor that they can't use tools, nor that they can't recover from penalties inflicted later. Just that they can't learn new things and gain more levels.

Not being able to regain spell slots is a separate rule, unrelated to the "can't get stronger" clause. Just as "can only be healed in a lab for 100 gp/hp" is not part of nor affected by "can't get stronger."

Context is everything, here. The thing can't get stronger so it can't get more levels. That's all that means.

If you want to rule otherwise, go ahead, but it's a pretty cross-eyed reading of the rules to claim it's the RAW, in my opinion.

The exact phrase is: "The simulacrum lacks the ability to learn or become more powerful,"

That's the rule. The text goes on to give two examples of what constitutes learning or becoming more powerful:

"so it never increases its level or other abilities, nor can it regain expended spell slots."

That's it. The context for not regaining spell slots is that it's an example of becoming more powerful. Contrary to your claim it's not unrelated, it's a direct example of the rule. The purpose of such examples is to give a reader guidelines for figuring out when something is or isn't possible.

JackPhoenix

2016-03-02, 07:48 AM

"so it never increases its level or other abilities, nor can it regain expended spell slots."

That's it. The context for not regaining spell slots is that it's an example of becoming more powerful. Contrary to your claim it's not unrelated, it's a direct example of the rule. The purpose of such examples is to give a reader guidelines for figuring out when something is or isn't possible.

You know, you propably could argue that restoring sorcery points/Ki points/superiority dice is increasing "other abilities", from zero (or so) to...something. That's nitpicking, though.

Segev

2016-03-02, 09:09 AM

The exact phrase is: "The simulacrum lacks the ability to learn or become more powerful,"

That's the rule. The text goes on to give two examples of what constitutes learning or becoming more powerful:

"so it never increases its level or other abilities, nor can it regain expended spell slots."

That's it. The context for not regaining spell slots is that it's an example of becoming more powerful. Contrary to your claim it's not unrelated, it's a direct example of the rule. The purpose of such examples is to give a reader guidelines for figuring out when something is or isn't possible.

If you want to nitpick, then it doesn't say "for example." It says "so." It can easily be read that "lacks the ability to learn or become more powerful" is a fluff clause, with what follows after "so" being the exact mechanical effect of that clause. If they didn't want it to be able to benefit from buff spells, or to regain other expended resources, they could have phrased it much more directly. Or they could have phrased it as, "so it cannot gain levels, nor regain expended resources such as spell slots, nor benefit from spells and effects which make it more powerful or confer new abilities."

Instead, it says "so" and lists two specific things. No "for example," no broad categories. No levels, no regaining spell slots. Even in colloquial readings of English, that is specific. Reading it as just examples is stretching things.

Vogonjeltz

2016-03-03, 09:58 AM

You know, you propably could argue that restoring sorcery points/Ki points/superiority dice is increasing "other abilities", from zero (or so) to...something. That's nitpicking, though.

No, I think that's right on, nothing that is expendable would regenerate automatically. The spell has specific exception rules allowing the simulacrum to be "healed" by repairing it, but it can't heal either.

If you want to nitpick, then it doesn't say "for example." It says "so." It can easily be read that "lacks the ability to learn or become more powerful" is a fluff clause, with what follows after "so" being the exact mechanical effect of that clause. If they didn't want it to be able to benefit from buff spells, or to regain other expended resources, they could have phrased it much more directly. Or they could have phrased it as, "so it cannot gain levels, nor regain expended resources such as spell slots, nor benefit from spells and effects which make it more powerful or confer new abilities."

Instead, it says "so" and lists two specific things. No "for example," no broad categories. No levels, no regaining spell slots. Even in colloquial readings of English, that is specific. Reading it as just examples is stretching things.

So
conjunction
and for this reason; therefore.

Thus the sentence construction is: Rule therefore an outcome

So, (therefore) no, by the very definition of the words used (in english) that's a rule and an example of that rule.

Furthermore, that use of "So" is the formal use, it's not colloquial (informal) use.

This is informal (colloquial) use:
Speaker 1: Dr. Johnson, when did you start studying this disorder?
Speaker 2: So, I had noticed certain patients seemed to…

Notice that although it's left unstated, the phrase "an example of" could be inserted after "This is". Precisely because that's not the only way that "So" is used colloquially.

More on the topic:
http://blog.dictionary.com/sentence-initial-so/
http://www.wikihow.com/Avoid-Colloquial-(Informal)-Writing
http://unilearning.uow.edu.au/academic/2e.html

Segev

2016-03-03, 10:50 AM

So
conjunction
and for this reason; therefore.

Thus the sentence construction is: Rule therefore an outcome

So, (therefore) no, by the very definition of the words used (in english) that's a rule and an example of that rule.

"Gravity causes objects to be attracted to each other, so matter in a gravitational field is experiencing acceleration."

That doesn't mean "for example." That means "this is what happens as a consequence."

"The simulacrum cannot get more powerful, so it cannot gain levels nor regain spell slots." That doesn't say "for example," it says "therefore." It presents a conclusion, explaining the significance of the prior clause.

By the very definition of "so" you just stated, it is not possible to infer additional mechanical effects. It is possible to postulate them, but not infer them. Anything more is, arguably, a house rule.