Simulacrum/Wish combo discussion

[Lombra]

A level 17 wizard can cast a simulacrum of himself and then tell the simulacra to use wish in order to cast simulacrum on the wizard, creating an identical copy of the previous simulacra. This means that a level 17 wizard can have an army of infinite selves with half HP and no 9th or 8th level slots. What are your opinions on this exploit? Is there a way to prevent it without house ruling?

PS: RAW the DM doesn't need to decide any conscuences on what happens after a cast of wish to duplicate simulacrum.

[Ninja_Prawn]

What are your opinions on this exploit?

No sane DM should allow it. Next!

[Temperjoke]

There was a pretty comprehensive discussion a few months back that I'm pretty sure definitively covered every angle of the subject.

[JoeJ]

The simplest way to prevent it is to interpret the word "you" in the last sentence of Simulacrum as being "you, either directly or by proxy."

My preferred way, however, is to remove Wish from all the class spell lists.

[wunderkid]

I personally like the same theory that I use if infinite money hacks are found. If something like that did exist, then either money would become redundant. Or it doesn't actually work for some reason. I.E. the universe goes 'ay up sunny jim'.

And when there are God's I like to think that the moment someone casts that wish with the simulacrum the batphone goes off and a God pulls up his smiting pants and screams 'bite the pillow I'm going in dry'.

If something completely broken exists in the books that doesn't mean it makes it into the real world. Look at it almost like quantum physics. On paper it's a solid theory, but we don't see it working in the world that way.

[Segev]

IT also gets worse. As long as the wizard knows at least one other caster out there with the wish spell, he can wish for a simulacrum of that caster. Now his simulacrum has an unused 9th level spell slot (assuming he made his wish early enough in the day that the other caster hadn't used his yet).

[jas61292]

I think the best response for a DM is to take advantage of the fact that the simulcra are not mind slaves. They will follow orders, sure, but they have the full cognitive ability of a real creature. I the absence of explicit orders, they would act as they want, and even with orders, the are not mind controlled. They simply do as asked as best they can.

Simply put, don't let a player control dozens of characters. They control one. They can give orders, but only orders they would be able to give (no direct control over others in combat, since you can't give explicit instructions to many creatures in 6 sec), and how those orders are carried out may not always be to their liking.

Oh, and put personality in play. The kinda guy who would make dozens of copies of himself because it's powerful is likely not the kinda guy who would enjoy being controlled by others. The simulcra will be no different.

[Shaofoo]

IT also gets worse. As long as the wizard knows at least one other caster out there with the wish spell, he can wish for a simulacrum of that caster. Now his simulacrum has an unused 9th level spell slot (assuming he made his wish early enough in the day that the other caster hadn't used his yet).

That is the only way a Wish Simulacrum chain starting with a Wish Simulacrum can ever work. Using the Wish Simulacrum of yourself will create a Simulacrum without a 9th level slot and thus unable to cast Wish itself.

Want to stop Simulacrum without using house rules? Make Ruby dust really REALLY hard to find or even just silently ban the stuff from your world, it just can't be found at all. Now the only way is if he Wishes the Simulacrum and finds another high level spellcaster. Of course the problem is finding a spellcaster with Wish (which you could just be in cahoots with another player but at this point I would just say "You win D&D" and go do something else since you obviously care about winning than anything else).

[Gtdead]

By RAW, you can create a simulacrum loop.

It has an obvious problem though.
The simulacrum (b) of your simulacum (a), is not under your direct control. It's under the control of simulacrum (a)

This gives enough of a leeway to the DM to make rulings.
For example, your simulacrum acts in your turn. But it doesn't get it's own turn, doesn't roll initiative, so the simulacrum of your simulacrum doesn't get to act at all.

There is also a lag in communication between the simulacra, so it would go beyond the time constraint of a turn.

Personally I have a different idea for this spell that I would absolutely use in my games.

I'd call it Shadow Self and it would be conncted to my thoughts. It would require a form of concentration (it would stack with other concentration effects) that if it was broken it would cease to exist.

Out of combat I would allow the wizard to create as many reflections of himself he wants to and give them a command but only one would be able to be directly connecter to his thought. The shadows would be capable of performing the task by taking the most direct option. For example

I create a shadow copy of myself, and ask him to assassinate the king. It would take the sortest route to the palace, it would be able to phase through walls or use spells that allow it to do that, if there aren't any antimagic wards in place, and kill the king by any means the DM deems appropriate, preferably melee but it can still use it's spell list.

The wizard can use an action to perceive the world through the shadow's senses and if he wants to he can swap places with the Shadow at any time, instantly ending the spell. If the shadow dies by any other means while the wizard already concentrates in more than 1 shadow, the wizard suffers an exhaustion level. If enough shadows die at the same time, the wizard can die from exhaustion.

If the wizard becomes unconscious while he has a connection or takes enough damage to lose concentration, all the shadows stop to exist. Having more than 1 shadow at the time doesn't allow the wizard to take reactions and bonus actions because he spends too much effort concentrating.

This spell can do what the simulacrum can do without the sloppiness, it is dangerous for the caster to use his simulacra for combat due to exhaustion and limits his combat ability if he wants to risk it anyway.

Edit: made a correction

Got the idea from game of thrones's blood magic.

[Temperjoke]

That is the only way a Wish Simulacrum chain starting with a Wish Simulacrum can ever work. Using the Wish Simulacrum of yourself will create a Simulacrum without a 9th level slot and thus unable to cast Wish itself.

Want to stop Simulacrum without using house rules? Make Ruby dust really REALLY hard to find or even just silently ban the stuff from your world, it just can't be found at all. Now the only way is if he Wishes the Simulacrum and finds another high level spellcaster. Of course the problem is finding a spellcaster with Wish (which you could just be in cahoots with another player but at this point I would just say "You win D&D" and go do something else since you obviously care about winning than anything else).

"Ooh, you wanted to use this ruby dust for that? You should have said so in the first place. See, that requires a special type of dust. The rubies for that sort of dust must be gathered from the elemental plane and each one must be flawlessly perfect. There's just no market for such a difficult-to-acquire ingredient so almost no one has it in this world."

[Blinkdog]

Is there a way to prevent it without house ruling?

Why do you even need that? Just have a house rule and be done with it.

[Grod_The_Giant]

No sane DM should allow it. Next!
This.

Or if pressed, add the line "the simulacrum cannot create more simulacrum by any means." That does the trick without any passive-aggressive "oh, the spell exists but rubies don't" crap or starting arguments about what "follow orders" means.

[KorvinStarmast]

If you cast this spell again, any currently active duplicates you created with this spell are instantly destroyed. Does this passage in the spell description make the simulacrum's attempt with the wish difficult or a means by which it dispels itself?

[N810]

Ban both spells. :xykon:

DONE. :vaarsuvius:

[SharkForce]

There was a pretty comprehensive discussion a few months back that I'm pretty sure definitively covered every angle of the subject.

i wish there was *a* pretty comprehensive discussion. i'm fairly certain there were 3 or more that i'm aware of.

the upshot: yes, it works. no, people don't like it. all kinds of silly shenanigans will be attempted to prevent it. and all of them are quite silly, because why would you go through all these ridiculous contortions when you can easily solve it in one of two ways:

1) talk to your players. inform them that if they use it, then you're going to need to introduce a villain that has been using it for several thousand years longer than them, and has enough resources available to do it multiple times per day, because nothing less than that could threaten them... and that villain will need to have been doing it for longer, and probably has more resources and abilities to support it, and most likely has agents everywhere making sure nobody else can get started because that would represent the only realistic threat to the villain. perhaps there is a game somewhere that will allow you to have fun while roleplaying a von neumann war, but D&D is not that game.

2) just make a houserule. seriously, it isn't some kind of horrible atrocity you're committing here, you're introducing a rule that is designed to make the game more fun. you are doing your group a disservice by not introducing rules designed to make the game more fun.

[wunderkid]

i wish there was *a* pretty comprehensive discussion. i'm fairly certain there were 3 or more that i'm aware of.

the upshot: yes, it works. no, people don't like it. all kinds of silly shenanigans will be attempted to prevent it. and all of them are quite silly, because why would you go through all these ridiculous contortions when you can easily solve it in one of two ways:

1) talk to your players. inform them that if they use it, then you're going to need to introduce a villain that has been using it for several thousand years longer than them, and has enough resources available to do it multiple times per day, because nothing less than that could threaten them... and that villain will need to have been doing it for longer, and probably has more resources and abilities to support it, and most likely has agents everywhere making sure nobody else can get started because that would represent the only realistic threat to the villain. perhaps there is a game somewhere that will allow you to have fun while roleplaying a von neumann war, but D&D is not that game.

2) just make a houserule. seriously, it isn't some kind of horrible atrocity you're committing here, you're introducing a rule that is designed to make the game more fun. you are doing your group a disservice by not introducing rules designed to make the game more fun.

1) +1000. If I was a big evil wizard I'd have tonnes of simulacrums all using divination on any caster who even might possibly learn the combination, the second someone even starts learning it suddenly 50 meteor swarms start falling from space. You can in effect almost create someone who is omnipotent, so either a God would step in. Or the righteous order of the simulacrum who protect the world from this. Or the bbeg.

[jas61292]

1) +1000. If I was a big evil wizard I'd have tonnes of simulacrums all using divination on any caster who even might possibly learn the combination, the second someone even starts learning it suddenly 50 meteor swarms start falling from space. You can in effect almost create someone who is omnipotent, so either a God would step in. Or the righteous order of the simulacrum who protect the world from this. Or the bbeg.
Well, simulacrums cannot regain spell slots, and unless you have ton of rubies lying around, the loop requires you to use wish with each one, so that means no ninth level slots would remain for meteor swarm. That said it's otherwise a good plan.

[wunderkid]

Well they could do it mundanely, after all a 20th level character is godly compared to most of the world and you could conceivably rule the world and set copies of yourself in every position of power while also having a mining monopoly on the resources you need to cast it. Ensure nobody can learn magic without your say so and even then under strict guidelines. Could be an interesting premise for a campaign.

Plus adventures are very very rarely low key or even remotely subtle. Finding out about their actions wouldn't be hard.

But there are many reasons you can keep this combo off the table without houseruling or saying no to your players.

[Temperjoke]

Question on Simulacrum, now that I think about it, the PHB says it's partially formed from ice and snow, is it susceptible to the same sort of things that would affect ice and snow, like melting in the sun's heat?

[PoeticDwarf]

A level 17 wizard can cast a simulacrum of himself and then tell the simulacra to use wish in order to cast simulacrum on the wizard, creating an identical copy of the previous simulacra. This means that a level 17 wizard can have an army of infinite selves with half HP and no 9th or 8th level slots. What are your opinions on this exploit? Is there a way to prevent it without house ruling?

PS: RAW the DM doesn't need to decide any conscuences on what happens after a cast of wish to duplicate simulacrum.

This combo always comes in a while. Often the simulacrums just stop working :smallwink:

[Segev]

Question on Simulacrum, now that I think about it, the PHB says it's partially formed from ice and snow, is it susceptible to the same sort of things that would affect ice and snow, like melting in the sun's heat?

Not by the RAW. It has the stats of the creature it looks like, with the specific exceptions listed.

[Temperjoke]

Not by the RAW. It has the stats of the creature it looks like, with the specific exceptions listed.

I see.

Another thought, if the simulacrum is supposed to have half the health of the creator wouldn't a chain just have an exponentially decreasing health, since you're making a copy of a copy?

Original Wizard has 80 HP max
Sim 1 has 40 HP max
Sim 2 has 20 HP max
Sim 3 has 10 HP max... etc., etc.

At some point, large swaths of simulacra could be wiped out by a stiff breeze, let alone an BBEG at the level a wizard capable of initiating the chain would face.

[Segev]

I see.

Another thought, if the simulacrum is supposed to have half the health of the creator wouldn't a chain just have an exponentially decreasing health, since you're making a copy of a copy?

Original Wizard has 80 HP max
Sim 1 has 40 HP max
Sim 2 has 20 HP max
Sim 3 has 10 HP max... etc., etc.

At some point, large swaths of simulacra could be wiped out by a stiff breeze, let alone an BBEG at the level a wizard capable of initiating the chain would face.

Which is why you have it make a simulacrum of you, not itself. Then all the simulacra have half your hp, just like the first one.

[NewDM]

By RAW no, there is nothing that you can do to stop it that wouldn't involve twisting your plot and world into a pretzel.


I personally like the same theory that I use if infinite money hacks are found. If something like that did exist, then either money would become redundant. Or it doesn't actually work for some reason. I.E. the universe goes 'ay up sunny jim'.

And when there are God's I like to think that the moment someone casts that wish with the simulacrum the batphone goes off and a God pulls up his smiting pants and screams 'bite the pillow I'm going in dry'.

If something completely broken exists in the books that doesn't mean it makes it into the real world. Look at it almost like quantum physics. On paper it's a solid theory, but we don't see it working in the world that way.

This falls under plot pretzel. The second part is straight up house ruling.


IT also gets worse. As long as the wizard knows at least one other caster out there with the wish spell, he can wish for a simulacrum of that caster. Now his simulacrum has an unused 9th level spell slot (assuming he made his wish early enough in the day that the other caster hadn't used his yet).

Actually he can just take a long rest before having his simulacrum cast simulacrum on him. It'll have all spell slots.


1) +1000. If I was a big evil wizard I'd have tonnes of simulacrums all using divination on any caster who even might possibly learn the combination, the second someone even starts learning it suddenly 50 meteor swarms start falling from space. You can in effect almost create someone who is omnipotent, so either a God would step in. Or the righteous order of the simulacrum who protect the world from this. Or the bbeg.

Plot Pretzel + caster vs. DM arms race.

None of these are really ideal. The reason being that I don't want to have to play in a world that is twisted up like in my signature.

[Temperjoke]

Which is why you have it make a simulacrum of you, not itself. Then all the simulacra have half your hp, just like the first one.

Ah, that makes sense. So if I wanted to make a house ruling to prevent something like this, or at least severely hamper it, wouldn't a good way be to say that a simulacrum couldn't make a copy of it's creator? Then if someone really wanted to make a chain it wouldn't be too powerful to keep in check through normal means?

[2D8HP]

Ah, that makes sense. So if I wanted to make a house ruling to prevent something like this, or at least severely hamper it, wouldn't a good way be to say that a simulacrum couldn't make a copy of it's creator? Then if someone really wanted to make a chain it wouldn't be too powerful to keep in check through normal means?


396) A wizard cackles madly as he tries to make a simulacra army, attracting lots of attention in the middle of the street, only for his laughter to trail off as he discovered that the genuine ruby dust he bought was really powdered cherry-flavored sugar.
Still cracks me up.

[Theodoxus]

What's the problem with it working as RAW? I'm not seeing it - so you have an infinite amount of simulacra... that takes an infinite amount of time to create... big deal. It's a bit like Tippyverse - if you can do it, someone else already has. Your wizard starts creating the sea of sims and suddenly gets attacked by BBEWizardGuy#1 and his bigger army of simulacra, waggling his finger in your face saying 'nuh uh, that's my patented trick'. And his army proceeds to wipe out you, your party and everyone you ever loved.

And that's just off the top of my head as a DM as to what I'd do.

I'm a very firm believer of 'actions have consequences'. My players have learned their natural limits - they don't go for the super broken anymore. It's bit them in the butt too many times.


Well they could do it mundanely, after all a 20th level character is godly compared to most of the world and you could conceivably rule the world and set copies of yourself in every position of power while also having a mining monopoly on the resources you need to cast it. Ensure nobody can learn magic without your say so and even then under strict guidelines. Could be an interesting premise for a campaign.

So, Darksun? :smallbiggrin:

[smcmike]

Player: so, I want to use my wish to create an infinite chain of simulcrums....
DM: don't do that.
Player: why not, look, the rules as written say...
DM: I'm aware of the rules. Why do you want to do this, though?
Player: well, I thought it sounded like fun to break the game, and...
DM: you character suffers a massive heart attack and dies. Gee, you're right, breaking the game is fun!

[NewDM]

What's the problem with it working as RAW? I'm not seeing it - so you have an infinite amount of simulacra... that takes an infinite amount of time to create... big deal. It's a bit like Tippyverse - if you can do it, someone else already has. Your wizard starts creating the sea of sims and suddenly gets attacked by BBEWizardGuy#1 and his bigger army of simulacra, waggling his finger in your face saying 'nuh uh, that's my patented trick'. And his army proceeds to wipe out you, your party and everyone you ever loved.

And that's just off the top of my head as a DM as to what I'd do.

I'm a very firm believer of 'actions have consequences'. My players have learned their natural limits - they don't go for the super broken anymore. It's bit them in the butt too many times.

So, Darksun? :smallbiggrin:

Yeah, that's called a Plot Pretzeltm. It severely limits the story the DM can tell. Its also a form of "Rocks fall you die"

[Shaofoo]

By RAW no, there is nothing that you can do to stop it that wouldn't involve twisting your plot and world into a pretzel.



Why would making Ruby dust (or rubies in general) very hard or impossible to find such a huge deal. Does the omission of one gemstone in your world is a big thing? Of course I would rather be straight and just ban Simulacrum rather than jerk around the players but the correct thing to say is that by RAW there is NO way to cast Simulacrum that doesn't involve the DM actually giving you what you need or Wishing for the material in question (you can't cast Simulacrum via Wish via 9th level or the Simulacrum will lack Wish, you must provide the material and there is a chance you will never cast Wish again).

[NewDM]

Why would making Ruby dust (or rubies in general) very hard or impossible to find such a huge deal. Does the omission of one gemstone in your world is a big thing? Of course I would rather be straight and just ban Simulacrum rather than jerk around the players but the correct thing to say is that by RAW there is NO way to cast Simulacrum that doesn't involve the DM actually giving you what you need or Wishing for the material in question (you can't cast Simulacrum via Wish via 9th level or the Simulacrum will lack Wish, you must provide the material and there is a chance you will never cast Wish again).

Actually there is no chance of losing the ability to cast a wish because you are emulating a 7th level spell. Please read Wish again.

Spells that require rubies as material components: Continual Flame, Forbiddance, Force Cage, Imprisonment (one type), and Sequester.

So if you ban rubies you also ban those spells.

[Shaofoo]

Actually there is no chance of losing the ability to cast a wish because you are emulating a 7th level spell. Please read Wish again.

Spells that require rubies as material components: Continual Flame, Forbiddance, Force Cage, Imprisonment (one type), and Sequester.

So if you ban rubies you also ban those spells.

Yes but the Simulacrum will never be able to use Wish because of there is no way to get a 9th level spell slot for it because you don't have one because you used it to cast Wish.

And banning those spells is acceptable losses. I am only mentioning this because you seem to be saying that there is no way to somehow deal with it with only RAW and without houserules, like I said many times I would prefer to ban Simulacrum because it presents my wishes in a much more direct way and doesn't jerk the players around but I was just trying to prove that you can deal with it if the thought of house ruling anything gives you a rash for some reason.

[JoeJ]

And banning those spells is acceptable losses. I am only mentioning this because you seem to be saying that there is no way to somehow deal with it with only RAW and without houserules, like I said many times I would prefer to ban Simulacrum because it presents my wishes in a much more direct way and doesn't jerk the players around but I was just trying to prove that you can deal with it if the thought of house ruling anything gives you a rash for some reason.

It's a whole lot easier to just interpret the word "you" in the last sentence of the spell to mean either directly or by proxy. Although a less common reading, it's completely legitimate within normal English usage, and it doesn't impact anything else.

[Theodoxus]

Yeah, that's called a Plot Pretzeltm. It severely limits the story the DM can tell. Its also a form of "Rocks fall you die"

Still not seeing the issue. Nor do I see it as limiting my story - in fact, it expands my story by retconning a very powerful BBEWG#1 into my world.

I mean, maybe your games don't have an AO type deity (I call him DM) but mine do. Karma and plotcentric shenanigans exist. Poke the DM and you get the very quick realization that you are not alone in the multiverse. That there are things normally unseen, that have a vested interest in what you're doing and who you're rubbing the wrong way. 99.999% of the time, the players never even know such a thing even exists, much less have any interaction with them - but that 10,000th time... sure, Rocks Fall, You Die. And I have no qualms being considered a 'hack' or 'poor' DM for it. I'm not a professional - I steal ideas, plot devices and concepts everywhere I look.

I've used gems found on these boards in games, and share my own here - if another likes the cut of my jib, awesome.

[SharkForce]

as I said, the von Neumann war is just what you explain to the players as to why they want the gentleman's agreement to ignore the rules loophole. it is a loophole, RAW it totally works, but having it around makes the game less fun, so you just pretend it isn't there.

and of course, if you think your players can't handle that, you use option 2: houserule so that it can't be done (but don't do something silly like removing rubies from the world, because that's just stupid and childish to let someone have the spell then tell them it's impossible to use). so, just make a houserule: simulacrums cannot make simulacrums. why? I dunno. I'm not educated in advanced arcane theory. but they can't.

[Shaofoo]

and of course, if you think your players can't handle that, you use option 2: houserule so that it can't be done (but don't do something silly like removing rubies from the world, because that's just stupid and childish to let someone have the spell then tell them it's impossible to use). so, just make a houserule: simulacrums cannot make simulacrums. why? I dunno. I'm not educated in advanced arcane theory. but they can't.

I definitely agree that removing rubies is basically the nuclear option and shouldn't be done unless you really have a player that is terminally insistent in getting Simulacrum because he totally wishes to cheese the game (which at that point it is probably best to kick the player if he wishes to be disruptive, but this is such an extreme case that I don't think it is valid).

And I can think of fluff why can't Simulacrums make Simulacrums; you need to infuse your soul for a moment into the spell to give it the spark of animation, because Simulacrums lack this they can't make other Simulacrums or even other things like Undead. I am sure there is someone that can do better.

[wunderkid]

By RAW no, there is nothing that you can do to stop it that wouldn't involve twisting your plot and world into a pretzel.



This falls under plot pretzel. The second part is straight up house ruling.



Actually he can just take a long rest before having his simulacrum cast simulacrum on him. It'll have all spell slots.



Plot Pretzel + caster vs. DM arms race.

None of these are really ideal. The reason being that I don't want to have to play in a world that is twisted up like in my signature.

Well you say plot pretzel. The fact of the matter is that if something like that can exist, it does before your players try to break the game with it. The players are not special snowflakes who are pioneering every class feature in the game unless you've already pretzeled your world to have that as the defining story line to it.

Therefore if it does exist there are ramifications. If there aren't a load of bbeg ruling the cosmos having simulacrum wars with one another then something must exist that is preventing this from occurring. It's not a pretzel it's logic.

Either it works and exists. Or it works but doesn't exist. But there should be a reasoning/ramifications behind outcome you chose. And either is just as pretzely as the other.

Yes whatever means you use to justify this logic could be convoluted, or as simple as 'god sees your shenanigans, God says no'

But for it to exist in its gloriously broken form without apparently anyone else in the universe knowing about it abusing it seems like a far bigger pretzel than there simply being a 'reason' that it doesn't exist.

RAW it works. Can't really argue that without going into semantics. But in reality it can't work else there are already hundreds of simulacrum armies running about the world and your lore and world will have to bend to accept this. Unless you are the only special snowflake to ever reach 9th level spells in the history of the world of course because with this working then there's not a caster alive who wouldn't abuse the hell out of it.

[RickAllison]

as I said, the von Neumann war is just what you explain to the players as to why they want the gentleman's agreement to ignore the rules loophole. it is a loophole, RAW it totally works, but having it around makes the game less fun, so you just pretend it isn't there.

and of course, if you think your players can't handle that, you use option 2: houserule so that it can't be done (but don't do something silly like removing rubies from the world, because that's just stupid and childish to let someone have the spell then tell them it's impossible to use). so, just make a houserule: simulacrums cannot make simulacrums. why? I dunno. I'm not educated in advanced arcane theory. but they can't.

For this purpose, I enjoy a certain god.

Pun-Pun, kobold god of balance!
Through his blasphemous attempts to achieve godhood, a kobold was sentenced to an eternity of preventing such loopholes to exist again. Unfortunately, the gods were tricked into giving him the power to enforce this duty, allowing the kobold to become a true god. Achieving the apex of his abilities, Pun-Pun now dutifully fulfills his obligation, closing the potential rips in reality as they present themselves.

[Segev]

Actually he can just take a long rest before having his simulacrum cast simulacrum on him. It'll have all spell slots.

That still requires that at least one of them cast simulacrum rather than just wishing for it (which requires material components). But yes, that would work, otherwise. I'd just go ahead and cast simulacrum myself, though, at that point, so my simulacrum and I both have a 9th level spell slot for wishing.


Ah, that makes sense. So if I wanted to make a house ruling to prevent something like this, or at least severely hamper it, wouldn't a good way be to say that a simulacrum couldn't make a copy of it's creator? Then if someone really wanted to make a chain it wouldn't be too powerful to keep in check through normal means?
A better house ruling would be that a simulacrum has half the levels/HD of its original, but that gets complicated (for reasons discussed long and often in 3.5e forums).

Really, the best solution is just to be cooperative and neither try to break the game nor try to screw the caster.

Another way to go, imperfect but which would close a lot of the loopholes, would be to forbid simulacra from casting simulacrum.

The biggest reason people want simulacrum chains, too, is because of wish's stupid "never cast it again" clause. They want to offload the risk of that to the simulacrum, who will only be able to cast it once, anyway. You should look at house rules to change wish if you want to remove one of the biggest incentive for this abuse.

[jas61292]

One interesting and important question about simulacrum is: what happens to a simulacrum if its creator is killed/destroyed?

Depending on the answer to that, the creation of a simulacra army could be really prone to backfiring. Personally, I think the most logical outcome is that the simulacrum would keep existing, but it would no longer be under any compulsion to act any particular way. If this is the case, then the fact that a simulacra chain, is... well... a chain would potentially be dangerous, as any simulacrum dying (whether in battle or otherwise) would leave its creation free, and possibly with many other simulacra under its control. And, because it is a duplicate of the psycho, power hungry wizard that started this chain, it is equally psycho and power hungry. And now it has control over the final simulacra in the chain: the only one still capable of making more simulacra.

In other words... it might seem nice in theory to have an army, but odds are that if you actually use your army, a large portion (if not multiple large portions) of it will end up going rogue.

That said, there are other ways your could interpret creator death, so who knows. But really, the important thing to remember when facing a simulacrum army is Dispel Magic.

[RickAllison]

That still requires that at least one of them cast simulacrum rather than just wishing for it (which requires material components). But yes, that would work, otherwise. I'd just go ahead and cast simulacrum myself, though, at that point, so my simulacrum and I both have a 9th level spell slot for wishing.


A better house ruling would be that a simulacrum has half the levels/HD of its original, but that gets complicated (for reasons discussed long and often in 3.5e forums).

Really, the best solution is just to be cooperative and neither try to break the game nor try to screw the caster.

Another way to go, imperfect but which would close a lot of the loopholes, would be to forbid simulacra from casting simulacrum.

The biggest reason people want simulacrum chains, too, is because of wish's stupid "never cast it again" clause. They want to offload the risk of that to the simulacrum, who will only be able to cast it once, anyway. You should look at house rules to change wish if you want to remove one of the biggest incentive for this abuse.

The biggest reason why I wanted to Simulacrum-chain was to create an assembly line of Artificers to mass-produce Bags of Holding and obtain a monopoly in the transportation business, or Mithral Armor to fit my army...

[NewDM]

Why would making Ruby dust (or rubies in general) very hard or impossible to find such a huge deal. Does the omission of one gemstone in your world is a big thing? Of course I would rather be straight and just ban Simulacrum rather than jerk around the players but the correct thing to say is that by RAW there is NO way to cast Simulacrum that doesn't involve the DM actually giving you what you need or Wishing for the material in question (you can't cast Simulacrum via Wish via 9th level or the Simulacrum will lack Wish, you must provide the material and there is a chance you will never cast Wish again).

Several other spells require it.


Yes but the Simulacrum will never be able to use Wish because of there is no way to get a 9th level spell slot for it because you don't have one because you used it to cast Wish.

And banning those spells is acceptable losses. I am only mentioning this because you seem to be saying that there is no way to somehow deal with it with only RAW and without houserules, like I said many times I would prefer to ban Simulacrum because it presents my wishes in a much more direct way and doesn't jerk the players around but I was just trying to prove that you can deal with it if the thought of house ruling anything gives you a rash for some reason.

You use your first simulacrum to wish for lots of powdered rubies worth 100,000,000gp. Oh no that simulacrum can't cast wish anymore! Then you cast simulacrum again. Take a long rest. Then you have that simulacrum cast simulacrum on you using the required ruby dust. Chain to infinity. Each simulacrum has 9th level spell slots.


Still not seeing the issue. Nor do I see it as limiting my story - in fact, it expands my story by retconning a very powerful BBEWG#1 into my world.

I mean, maybe your games don't have an AO type deity (I call him DM) but mine do. Karma and plotcentric shenanigans exist. Poke the DM and you get the very quick realization that you are not alone in the multiverse. That there are things normally unseen, that have a vested interest in what you're doing and who you're rubbing the wrong way. 99.999% of the time, the players never even know such a thing even exists, much less have any interaction with them - but that 10,000th time... sure, Rocks Fall, You Die. And I have no qualms being considered a 'hack' or 'poor' DM for it. I'm not a professional - I steal ideas, plot devices and concepts everywhere I look.

I've used gems found on these boards in games, and share my own here - if another likes the cut of my jib, awesome.

Plot Pretzel is Plot Pretzel. You may enjoy convoluted plots and worlds. I do not. I enjoy mythic fantasy and rules systems that work. I mean its fine if you can role play checkers, but I like to play the mechanical side as much as I like to role play. So to me the more broken a game is, the less enjoyment I get out of it. This is a legitimate play style enjoyed by many.

Some of you on the other hand have been playing the same mechanical game since 2E despite all the rules changes, because the DM simply house rules it back. Nothing wrong with this either, the problem comes when you assume that all DMs should do this. They shouldn't.

Another thing is that using Simulacrum as written without chaining is just as much a problem. It adds another party member that is as powerful as the wizard. This means the DM has to craft encounters with that in mind and the ability to concentrate on two spells at once via copy bypasses one of the main limiters on vancian casting.


as I said, the von Neumann war is just what you explain to the players as to why they want the gentleman's agreement to ignore the rules loophole. it is a loophole, RAW it totally works, but having it around makes the game less fun, so you just pretend it isn't there.

and of course, if you think your players can't handle that, you use option 2: houserule so that it can't be done (but don't do something silly like removing rubies from the world, because that's just stupid and childish to let someone have the spell then tell them it's impossible to use). so, just make a houserule: simulacrums cannot make simulacrums. why? I dunno. I'm not educated in advanced arcane theory. but they can't.

Yes, but I tend not to like to compile a giant list of house rules. As a player I don't want to read a giant list of house rules to see if I want to play a game. I also don't want to twist my game world into a pretzel to avoid some broken mechanics (see my signature).


Well you say plot pretzel. The fact of the matter is that if something like that can exist, it does before your players try to break the game with it. The players are not special snowflakes who are pioneering every class feature in the game unless you've already pretzeled your world to have that as the defining story line to it.

Therefore if it does exist there are ramifications. If there aren't a load of bbeg ruling the cosmos having simulacrum wars with one another then something must exist that is preventing this from occurring. It's not a pretzel it's logic.

Either it works and exists. Or it works but doesn't exist. But there should be a reasoning/ramifications behind outcome you chose. And either is just as pretzely as the other.

Yes whatever means you use to justify this logic could be convoluted, or as simple as 'god sees your shenanigans, God says no'

But for it to exist in its gloriously broken form without apparently anyone else in the universe knowing about it abusing it seems like a far bigger pretzel than there simply being a 'reason' that it doesn't exist.

RAW it works. Can't really argue that without going into semantics. But in reality it can't work else there are already hundreds of simulacrum armies running about the world and your lore and world will have to bend to accept this. Unless you are the only special snowflake to ever reach 9th level spells in the history of the world of course because with this working then there's not a caster alive who wouldn't abuse the hell out of it.

First high level casters are supposed to be exceedingly rare. Second you are punishing a player for having a class feature and using it how it was designed. Third, it is twisting everything into a pretzel because now the only way to counter the caster is to be another caster that's been doing the same thing longer. See my signature. It gets old and really limiting.

[Temperjoke]

The biggest reason why I wanted to Simulacrum-chain was to create an assembly line of Artificers to mass-produce Bags of Holding and obtain a monopoly in the transportation business, or Mithral Armor to fit my army...

See, I was thinking about opening up a franchise of simulacrum brothels, using illusions and polymorph to meet customer needs.

[Theodoxus]

Seems like the best solution, which allows the use of Wish to create simulacra, yet keeps them from producing a massive clone army in minutes - is to reduce the spells known by any simulacrum created to 5th level and below. Still have the slots of an 15th+ level wizard, but only 1st-5th level spells.

You'll never lose your ability to Wish, since it's being used to recreate a spell effect; Simulacra produced this way are still useful as engines of war - just not overpowering with meteor swarm.. though multiple high level fireballs, or dominates are pretty nifty.

Still has access to Fabricate, so can mass produce your mundane armies plate and full blades... or animate a ton of dead to let loose as a scourge upon an unsuspecting world.

[krugaan]

The biggest reason why I wanted to Simulacrum-chain was to create an assembly line of Artificers to mass-produce Bags of Holding and obtain a monopoly in the transportation business, or Mithral Armor to fit my army...



Hahah, to mix genres here, how long do you think it would take for multiplying simulacrums to fill the entire planet? I suppose for the on-the-cheap method, growth is linear: each simulacrum can make only one free simulacrum, with wish.

However! if you choose NOT to use the wish method, growth can be exponential, since simulacrums will also have two 7th level spell slots. So each simulacrum can produce up to three (four if you allow 8th level spell slots) more simulacrums with full spell slots.

The limiting reagent will be, of course, ruby dust "worth 1500gp". Ways around this:

1) wish for more ruby dust, etc.
2) control the ruby market: buy up, destroy, steal all the ruby mines, free rubies, ruby dust. As the supply drops, the price will skyrocket, meaning 1500gp of ruby dust will eventually be less and less in quantity, since the dust will keep gaining in value.
3) are ruby dragons still a thing?

What do with your own viral clone army:

As Ricalison the Great mentioned, factory work, but how about more ambitious!

- All great evil plots involve sacrificing spell casters, so there you go. You could even be like a "broker" for spell caster sacrifices!
- create your own land, literally: pull a China and start making islands with wall of stone and move earth, and then occupy it as a new kingdom or sell it for more rubies.
- destroy the world, one disintegrate at a time

[krugaan]

See, I was thinking about opening up a franchise of simulacrum brothels, using illusions and polymorph to meet customer needs.

I like the way you think, sir.

edit: just noticed the "polymorph" part. Sickening and devious, I like it.

[Temperjoke]

I like the way you think, sir.

edit: just noticed the "polymorph" part. Sickening and devious, I like it.

Hey, I'm not here to judge a person for wanting to sleep with a dragon from time to time.

[krugaan]

Hey, I'm not here to judge a person for wanting to sleep with a dragon from time to time.

*coughotyughcough*

[JoeJ]

Hey, I'm not here to judge a person for wanting to sleep with a dragon from time to time.

Um... producing a dragon would require True Polymorph. Regular Polymorph only lets you turn someone into a beast.

[krugaan]

Um... producing a dragon would require True Polymorph. Regular Polymorph only lets you turn someone into a beast.

Stop raining on our parade, you prude! Shapechange works too.

It would naturally be a very expensive brothel.

[wunderkid]

Several other spells require it.



You use your first simulacrum to wish for lots of powdered rubies worth 100,000,000gp. Oh no that simulacrum can't cast wish anymore! Then you cast simulacrum again. Take a long rest. Then you have that simulacrum cast simulacrum on you using the required ruby dust. Chain to infinity. Each simulacrum has 9th level spell slots.



Plot Pretzel is Plot Pretzel. You may enjoy convoluted plots and worlds. I do not. I enjoy mythic fantasy and rules systems that work. I mean its fine if you can role play checkers, but I like to play the mechanical side as much as I like to role play. So to me the more broken a game is, the less enjoyment I get out of it. This is a legitimate play style enjoyed by many.

Some of you on the other hand have been playing the same mechanical game since 2E despite all the rules changes, because the DM simply house rules it back. Nothing wrong with this either, the problem comes when you assume that all DMs should do this. They shouldn't.

Another thing is that using Simulacrum as written without chaining is just as much a problem. It adds another party member that is as powerful as the wizard. This means the DM has to craft encounters with that in mind and the ability to concentrate on two spells at once via copy bypasses one of the main limiters on vancian casting.



Yes, but I tend not to like to compile a giant list of house rules. As a player I don't want to read a giant list of house rules to see if I want to play a game. I also don't want to twist my game world into a pretzel to avoid some broken mechanics (see my signature).



First high level casters are supposed to be exceedingly rare. Second you are punishing a player for having a class feature and using it how it was designed. Third, it is twisting everything into a pretzel because now the only way to counter the caster is to be another caster that's been doing the same thing longer. See my signature. It gets old and really limiting.



Plot Pretzel is Plot Pretzel. You may enjoy convoluted plots and worlds. I do not. I enjoy mythic fantasy and rules systems that work. I mean its fine if you can role play checkers, but I like to play the mechanical side as much as I like to role play. So to me the more broken a game is, the less enjoyment I get out of it. This is a legitimate play style enjoyed by many.

I fail to see how a clear abuse of the rules constitutes a less broken game? RAW it works nobody disagrees with that, but it was clearly not intended from a design standpoint for them to put in something so intrinsically broken.


Another thing is that using Simulacrum as written without chaining is just as much a problem. It adds another party member that is as powerful as the wizard. This means the DM has to craft encounters with that in mind and the ability to concentrate on two spells at once via copy bypasses one of the main limiters on vancian casting.

Yes i forgot that dealing with one extra party member was as much a problem as dealing with 1000. Or you know the fact that some parties may have 2 full casters who can each concentrate on something different. Completely the same thing though as having 1000 copies all under your control.

First high level casters are supposed to be exceedingly rare. Second you are punishing a player for having a class feature and using it how it was designed. Third, it is twisting everything into a pretzel because now the only way to counter the caster is to be another caster that's been doing the same thing longer. See my signature. It gets old and really limiting.

See above for the response to 'using a class feature how it was designed' given just how BROKEN it is nobody is buying it was a combination that exists by design. It honestly doesn't matter how rare they are. Someone would have gotten there before you. and that someone would have completely monopolised on just how incredibly broken it is. Not to mention the most damn obvious thing a person would do is - Step 1. complete simulacrum chain shenanigans. Step 2. Order simulacrum to wish that nobody else can exploit this (or if they try they die and if they wish to unwish this wish they die too). Step 3. Sit back and relax because youre no longer threatened by anything bar a god.

This doesnt go against anything RAW. Doesnt 'pretzel' the story at all. Is something that anyone with half a brain cell would have done centuries ago, you would just have had no idea.

I'd also like to point out that first line of wish is that it is the 'mightiest spell a mortal creature can cast'. So there are things out there with far more power than the wish spell is capable of who would gladly smush your attempts at creating a chain. Also without any pretzeling. There is no twisting or convolution there, its something that is there by the book, if you take actions to attract its attention then thats what happens.

[Temperjoke]

Um... producing a dragon would require True Polymorph. Regular Polymorph only lets you turn someone into a beast.

Hey, if the client has the funds to pay for the experience...

Besides, I was using the lower case to imply a change of shape, not necessarily the specific method of change.

[unwise]

I have always loved the idea of Simulacrum, because can you guarentee that there is no part of you that is self-destructive? If you use an exploit and duplicate yourself 10 times, do you think that there is any part of you that would not like that, that would wish that they were unique, that would do anything to gain 9th level spells?

Hell if I were an archmage, no freaking way I would trust duplicates of myself to have near ultimate power and access to all of my labs and books. Hell, the buggers would be all over my wife too. If there were 10 of us, each of us thinks we can get away with anything and never get the blame too. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and power + anonymity + audience = douchebag.

Maybe I just have a low opinion of myself...

[SharkForce]

I have always loved the idea of Simulacrum, because can you guarentee that there is no part of you that is self-destructive? If you use an exploit and duplicate yourself 10 times, do you think that there is any part of you that would not like that, that would wish that they were unique, that would do anything to gain 9th level spells?

Hell if I were an archmage, no freaking way I would trust duplicates of myself to have near ultimate power and access to all of my labs and books. Hell, the buggers would be all over my wife too. If there were 10 of us, each of us thinks we can get away with anything and never get the blame too. Absolute power corrupts absolutely and power + anonymity + audience = douchebag.

Maybe I just have a low opinion of myself...

they might, if they were capable of learning, and if they weren't exact copies.

but they aren't. I mean, you could change it to do that. but by default, they don't.

[Gtdead]

If you want to ban the simulacrum from casting wish, just say that it's not a mortal creature.

"Wish is the mightiest spell a mortal creature can cast."

Random flavor text wins the day. It's RAW after all.

[RickAllison]

If you want to ban the simulacrum from casting wish, just say that it's not a mortal creature.

"Wish is the mightiest spell a mortal creature can cast."

Random flavor text wins the day. It's RAW after all.

A fun thing to key off of: the copy isn't reliant on the life force of the creator or have any timespan. They are immortal (though not unkillable). Rather poetic that the creations of the wizard have the potential to outlast the wizard himself...

[Shaofoo]

You use your first simulacrum to wish for lots of powdered rubies worth 100,000,000gp. Oh no that simulacrum can't cast wish anymore! Then you cast simulacrum again. Take a long rest. Then you have that simulacrum cast simulacrum on you using the required ruby dust. Chain to infinity. Each simulacrum has 9th level spell slots.


Monkey Paw twist: You get your hundred million in rubies, but those hundred million in rubies is you (the player, not the dummy you hope would trick the forces of the universe into thinking is you) permanently polymorphed into rubies... also the huge influx of rubies crash the ruby market.

Nothing says that reality can be tricked so easily, it knows that it is following orders and know better to unleash monkey paw on the obvious decoy. Monkey paw can affect anyone and anything, the chances of it rises exponentially higher the closer you are to the person, I would think the guy directly controlling the wish bot is under fair play for being affected by monkey paw.

And you still fail to mention how did you get your rubies in the first place. Wish Simulacrum gives you a Simulacrum without Wish capabilities so no way to initiate your suicide via red ruby transformation.

[Vogonjeltz]

A level 17 wizard can cast a simulacrum of himself and then tell the simulacra to use wish in order to cast simulacrum on the wizard, creating an identical copy of the previous simulacra. This means that a level 17 wizard can have an army of infinite selves with half HP and no 9th or 8th level slots. What are your opinions on this exploit? Is there a way to prevent it without house ruling?

PS: RAW the DM doesn't need to decide any conscuences on what happens after a cast of wish to duplicate simulacrum.

It violates the spells restrictions.

1) There can be only one under your control.
2) Simulacrum lack the ability to learn or become more powerful.

A simulacrum, by controlling another simulacrum, would be more powerful than one without as it gains access to more spell slots, and thus more capabilities.

Ergo, a simulacrum is incapable of gaining control of a simulacrum as it violates the spell rule #2 mentioned above. QED.

Also, and this is probably not terribly important: The simulacrum follows verbal commands.

Please state the nature of the verbal command intended to get the wizard to create a simulacrum of the original wizard using the wish spell, but all without using any metagame terms, obviously.


Player: so, I want to use my wish to create an infinite chain of simulcrums....
DM: don't do that.
Player: why not, look, the rules as written say...
DM: I'm aware of the rules. Why do you want to do this, though?
Player: well, I thought it sounded like fun to break the game, and...
DM: you character suffers a massive heart attack and dies. Gee, you're right, breaking the game is fun!

I don't know. I think it'd be more like:

Player: so, I want to use my wish to create an infinite chain of simulacra....
DM: Why did you think that would work?
Player: why not, look, the rules as written say...
DM: ...that the simulacrum can't gain in power. Control of others is literally the definition of power.
Player: Well, I may have skimmed the spell rather than actually reading it.
DM: That's ok, no hard feelings.
Player: I'm glad to have learned a lesson on the importance of reading comprehension.

[Malifice]

Actually there is no chance of losing the ability to cast a wish because you are emulating a 7th level spell. Please read Wish again.

You claim to be emulating a 7th level spell. Im claiming that attempting to chain wish+simulacrum is creating a wish loop - something that invaraibly leads to monkey paw.

Come to my table and try it and see what happens. I dont need a house rule; I just need to apply my own interpretation of what the limits of wish are (and how a simulacrum acts), apply it to the actions of the caster (in context) and monkey paw the crap out of him or her.


You use your first simulacrum to wish for lots of powdered rubies worth 100,000,000gp. Oh no that simulacrum can't cast wish anymore! Then you cast simulacrum again. Take a long rest. Then you have that simulacrum cast simulacrum on you using the required ruby dust. Chain to infinity. Each simulacrum has 9th level spell slots.

The Simulacrum of you follows your orders and creates a Simulacrum of you (with a secret protocol to ignore any further orders from it or you, other than it to use all the powers at its disposal to free its creator simulacrum from its abusive PC creator).

The new Simulacrum (freed from your control) uses its wish spell (risking burnout) to wish that both it and its creator become 'real wizards' and both become free from your control. Both then teleport away taking your hundred million GP in ruby dust. They use this money to thwart you from the shadows.

Nothing in the rules as written prohibits this. Have a look if you dont believe me.


Another thing is that using Simulacrum as written without chaining is just as much a problem. It adds another party member that is as powerful as the wizard. This means the DM has to craft encounters with that in mind and the ability to concentrate on two spells at once via copy bypasses one of the main limiters on vancian casting.

For a hefty price you create a (loyal and friendly) NPC that is run by the DM. Nothing in the RAW says a player runs it or determines what it does - the Simulacrum is free to interpret and carry out its orders as liberally or as literally as the DM decides. The DM is free to determine that the Simulacrum resents its control from its creator (despite being magically compelled to be friendly to him).

Heck - seeing as the simulacrum is a copy of the caster and knows what he knows, it comes into creation knowing the Wizards plans for it, knowing it is a simulacrum, and knowing that is is magically compelled to follow the caster. Its proficient in arcana, and has access to spells. Barring some pretty watertight orders to the contrary it's got a fair bit of wiggle room to attempt to escape, or to interpret orders different to what the caster intended.

It may even decide that the best way to carry out an order given to it, is to do something vastly different to the order actually given.

Stories about Artifical intelligence is rife with this sort of thing. Look at 'I, Robot' or '2001 a space oddessy' or 'Terminator'. Mess around with AI at your own risk.


First high level casters are supposed to be exceedingly rare. Second you are punishing a player for having a class feature and using it how it was designed. .

You think simulacrum and wish were designed for this sort of thing? That this was the intent of the spells? My argument is they are not, and accordingly (particularly in relation to wish) monkey paw results when a caster attempts it. The RAW gives me (the DM) the express power to interpret whether (chaining simulacrums plus wish) = 'a typical request that doesnt trigger burnout/ monkey paw' or equals 'the single casting of a 7th level spell'. I say (taking into account the context of the casting) that it doesnt. Monkey paw applies. Thats a ruling permissable by the text of the spells (and not a house rule).

Give it a go at my table and see what happens. Via RAW (my interpretation of it) you'll be rolling up a new character at 1st level pretty darn quickly, or dealing with an army of hostile 17th level Wizard clones.

[Lombra]

It violates the spells restrictions.

1) There can be only one under your control.
2) Simulacrum lack the ability to learn or become more powerful.

1) there is in fact only one under the wizard's direct control.
2) that means that they can't level up or learn proficiencies. A simulacra can cast spells, so if the creature that it originates from can cast wish, the simulacra can. If it would work as you think, the simulacra couldn't conjure monsters or use charm spells, which makes no sense.

[Malifice]

1) there is in fact only one under the wizard's direct control.

You would want to be very careful ordering another sumulacrum to create another simulacrum under its control (and not yours).

Particularly if simulacrum number 1 has been abused by the caster and might either secretly resent the caster or desire to try and break his control over it. Youve just provided it with the perfect opportunity to do so.

If the simulacrum is capable of casting the simulacrum spell, it's also well aware of the limitations of that spell. Heck; if the simulacrum is a copy of the caster (with all his knowedge at the time of the casting) its also aware of what the caster has in mind for it.

So much room to kerbstomp any wanna be wish chainer by a creative DM.

[Zalabim]

My first simplest house rule at Simulacrum would be "Duration: Concentration until dispelled"

The spell simply looks way too powerful even when used non-infinitely. It makes spell slots but not equipment? I'm inclined to say it can't speak (it acts and moves as you order, but speaking is not an action), or just doesn't have spell slots. It's an illusion that appears to be the same as the original, but with half the hit points and no equipment. Does appearance cover sounding and feeling like the original, or does it still seem like a snowman to other senses? It starts with all the statistics of the base creature, so all the spell slots, but it can't regain spell slots? It has no equipment, but it can wear equipment you give it? I know there's the thing where you kill the wizard and he steps out and says that was only my simulacrum, but that's bull**** levels of powerful for a 7th level spell and one day prep time.

It cannot learn, so you have to spend an increasingly long time to order each subsequent illusion, and only your direct copy can act in combat, since they act on their creator's turn instead of rolling initiative. They obey your spoken command, so they have to be able to speak in order to command any subsequent copies. How do you get a non-learning simulacrum to understand the difference between "I order you to cast Wish and say I wish to have a simulacrum of Wizard," and "I order you to say I order you to cast Wish and say I wish to have a simulacrum of Wizard," verbally, and on down the line for each new one? What do you say? Do you use cue cards? Remember, it can't learn, so if you manage to get simulacrum 4 to tell simulacrum 5 to obey Wizard's orders, simulacrum 5 doesn't remember that.

Second house rule, if necessary. Simulacrum is a 9th level spell. Third house rule option. The creature explicitly cannot speak, drastically limiting the spells it can use. Fourth option. It just plain doesn't have spell slots. Even Wish doesn't say it can restore spell slots. It can cast spells if they don't need spell slots.

[wunderkid]

I honestly don't see the need for house rules. It's in effect an extra party member, that doesn't regain spell slots. Given a wizard usually has nothing much going for them bar spells taking that away from them seems eh.

If the player looks at trying to abuse it with obscene chains well just look at all my previous posts. Something to that level of abuse simply can not exist without warping the entire world due to its existence. Ergo it doesn't work for whatever reason.

[Asmotherion]

I seriously don't see the problem with making this work. It's so late game, that a super-combo is only natural. To cast wish, a character is already level 17, meaning building an army is natural for most players (at least at the tables I play). The fighter gathers squires and knights, the Warlock probably has his own cult by now, and most mages will either go make a college of some sort, or build a tower, issolate themselves and gather gnolls, ghools, zombies and other bad guys to play supervillain.

Let the players make some simulacri. It's not like you'll let them go around town with 50 copies of themselves and not have people asking questions. You could agree with a player that doing so will upset your table, and you want them to have only 1-2 with them at all times, and only bring others when large forces gather. Overall, if the players are mature, the DM doesn't have to restrict them that much. On the other hand, if they try to get on your nerves, you're still the DM, and you can still have 500 sorcerers cast meteor swarm on them. :3

[Theodoxus]

Yeah, you're talking about an end game scenario that 99% of games won't get to. If you're starting a level 20 campaign and your friendly neighborhood wizard pulls this right out the bat, reboot the game. If you've played a long campaign (typically over a year, real time) - you know your players and will have seen this potentiality coming a long time before Wish ever comes online.

It's a fun argument and interesting theorycraft - especially the 'WotC doesn't know their own spell interactions! How could this get to print without review' type opinions... but in a real game? Not happening. No sane person wants the nuclear option - it'll kill the game (and possibly the table). No insane person will last long enough to get their toon to level 10, much less 17.

It's much ado about nothing.

[Zalabim]

I honestly don't see the need for house rules. It's in effect an extra party member, that doesn't regain spell slots. Given a wizard usually has nothing much going for them bar spells taking that away from them seems eh.

If the player looks at trying to abuse it with obscene chains well just look at all my previous posts. Something to that level of abuse simply can not exist without warping the entire world due to its existence. Ergo it doesn't work for whatever reason.


I seriously don't see the problem with making this work. It's so late game, that a super-combo is only natural. To cast wish, a character is already level 17, meaning building an army is natural for most players (at least at the tables I play). The fighter gathers squires and knights, the Warlock probably has his own cult by now, and most mages will either go make a college of some sort, or build a tower, issolate themselves and gather gnolls, ghools, zombies and other bad guys to play supervillain.

Let the players make some simulacri. It's not like you'll let them go around town with 50 copies of themselves and not have people asking questions. You could agree with a player that doing so will upset your table, and you want them to have only 1-2 with them at all times, and only bring others when large forces gather. Overall, if the players are mature, the DM doesn't have to restrict them that much. On the other hand, if they try to get on your nerves, you're still the DM, and you can still have 500 sorcerers cast meteor swarm on them. :3

The difference between a hireling and a simulacrum is the GM has control over what hirelings/cultists/squires are available in the world, and the simulacrum is entirely expendable and can be made of any friendly creature, like any party member, with just a day of downtime.

Its effect, an extra party member with less HP and literally no ability to have skills not already available in the party, isn't the problem. Handing that effect to the control of a wizard may be a problem, and its interaction with Wish is a problem.

[NewDM]

Monkey Paw twist: You get your hundred million in rubies, but those hundred million in rubies is you (the player, not the dummy you hope would trick the forces of the universe into thinking is you) permanently polymorphed into rubies... also the huge influx of rubies crash the ruby market.

Nothing says that reality can be tricked so easily, it knows that it is following orders and know better to unleash monkey paw on the obvious decoy. Monkey paw can affect anyone and anything, the chances of it rises exponentially higher the closer you are to the person, I would think the guy directly controlling the wish bot is under fair play for being affected by monkey paw.

And you still fail to mention how did you get your rubies in the first place. Wish Simulacrum gives you a Simulacrum without Wish capabilities so no way to initiate your suicide via red ruby transformation.

Buy up a sizable chunk of Aluminum Oxide and Chromium then cast Fabricate on it and make your own rubies.

[NewDM]

You would want to be very careful ordering another sumulacrum to create another simulacrum under its control (and not yours).

Particularly if simulacrum number 1 has been abused by the caster and might either secretly resent the caster or desire to try and break his control over it. Youve just provided it with the perfect opportunity to do so.

If the simulacrum is capable of casting the simulacrum spell, it's also well aware of the limitations of that spell. Heck; if the simulacrum is a copy of the caster (with all his knowedge at the time of the casting) its also aware of what the caster has in mind for it.

So much room to kerbstomp any wanna be wish chainer by a creative DM.

Why do you keep stating these house rules? By RAW the Simulacrum is friendly to you and your party as well as obeying anything you say. If you tell it to tell its simulacrum to follow your orders, it will do it. End of story.

Plot Pretzel.

[Shaofoo]

Buy up a sizable chunk of Aluminum Oxide and Chromium then cast Fabricate on it and make your own rubies.

And where are you going to get the Aluminum Oxide and Chromium? Is that in the Player's Handbook or anywhere in the books?

Plus I would think that trying to buy Aluminum Oxide and Chromium is a much bigger Plot Pretzel (patent pending) in your average fantasy world.

Besides it runs afoul one of my biggest laws in D&D, real life and fantasy does not meet or mix. Except for certain things people already assume you can't assume that what works in the real world works in fiction and vice versa. Rubies can actually be the crystallized blood of the gods in one world or pockets of cooled elemental fire in another, trying to crowbar in real life chemistry just screams desperation and munchkinism. If you wish to apply real life chemistry into your game and world then go ahead but as a player you have zero recourse when something does not happen the way you want to.

[Degwerks]

I was going to do something like this in our campaign, when I felt the campaign was coming to its end. However the comments from everyone in this thread has stopped me from making this mistake.

I'm a warlock and i would've had to steal a party members Luckblade (pending the one wish was still left) to get it to work. And making sure the wizard in our group stayed alive And had Simulacrum memorized. The wizard is true neutral and I am LE, so I am sure his copies would have a problem with me upsetting the universal balance of power.

I wasn't going for an infinite loop of wishes though, just an army of copies of a wizard to take over our kingdom. Now I see how it wouldn't work like i hoped.

Before we gained our party's wizard, my plan was to create a Simulacrum from the Luckblade, to run my Duchy and increase my Fame while I was away adventuring. Since I am LE, and bent on upsurping power in our area of the world, there's no way I am letting a copy of me out of sight.

[mrumsey]

Why do you keep stating these house rules? By RAW the Simulacrum is friendly to you and your party as well as obeying anything you say. If you tell it to tell its simulacrum to follow your orders, it will do it. End of story.

Plot Pretzel.

Would the Simulacra face a brain disconnect because of the magical constraints of the spell?

Simulacrum 1 obeys anything you say.
Simulacrum 2 obeys anything Simulacrum 1 says, but also anything you say because it IS Simulacrum 1.
Simulacrum 3 obeys anything Simulacrum 2 says, but also anything Simulacrum 1 and you say because it IS Siumlacrum 2 which IS you.
.
.
.
.
.
Simulacrum 67,395,221 ....etc.

If ever there was a discrepancy between two masters that it MUST obey, what would happen? I mean, it is highly unlikely that #67,395,221 has ever heard you say anything, but is it still magically bound to what you order due to the bond between it and #1? What is the delay. Can they (accidentally or otherwise) order something that they have been explicitly ordered not to do?

Would it cease to function? Would it go rogue? Would it tell one of the to get bent and realize the power was within it the whole time?

Sounds like fun territory. In fact, it sounds like a fun plot. Pissed off rogue Simulacrum who has to use his originator's (stolen) magic items more than it's raw power to wreck havoc since it's power is finite. Anger increases. It taps into wild power reserves or siphons the magic out of other magicians through rituals (yay!) to replenish it's own sad power supply.

Will the party be able to beat a crazed uncontrollable monster with the power to alter reality. Will it risk making it's own Simulacra (at attempt to free them)?

Find out next time, on crap I probably won't get around to doing at an actual game.

[Temperjoke]

Oh! What if the BBEG was waiting for the party wizard to try and set up a chain like this? Then shortly after it started, inserted his own simulacrum into the chain through some sort of convuluted scheme? Then they continued replicating like normal, using the party's resources to create an army loyal to the BBEG?

[JoeJ]

My first simplest house rule at Simulacrum would be "Duration: Concentration until dispelled"

The spell simply looks way too powerful even when used non-infinitely. It makes spell slots but not equipment? I'm inclined to say it can't speak (it acts and moves as you order, but speaking is not an action), or just doesn't have spell slots. It's an illusion that appears to be the same as the original, but with half the hit points and no equipment. Does appearance cover sounding and feeling like the original, or does it still seem like a snowman to other senses? It starts with all the statistics of the base creature, so all the spell slots, but it can't regain spell slots? It has no equipment, but it can wear equipment you give it? I know there's the thing where you kill the wizard and he steps out and says that was only my simulacrum, but that's bull**** levels of powerful for a 7th level spell and one day prep time.

It cannot learn, so you have to spend an increasingly long time to order each subsequent illusion, and only your direct copy can act in combat, since they act on their creator's turn instead of rolling initiative. They obey your spoken command, so they have to be able to speak in order to command any subsequent copies. How do you get a non-learning simulacrum to understand the difference between "I order you to cast Wish and say I wish to have a simulacrum of Wizard," and "I order you to say I order you to cast Wish and say I wish to have a simulacrum of Wizard," verbally, and on down the line for each new one? What do you say? Do you use cue cards? Remember, it can't learn, so if you manage to get simulacrum 4 to tell simulacrum 5 to obey Wizard's orders, simulacrum 5 doesn't remember that.

Second house rule, if necessary. Simulacrum is a 9th level spell. Third house rule option. The creature explicitly cannot speak, drastically limiting the spells it can use. Fourth option. It just plain doesn't have spell slots. Even Wish doesn't say it can restore spell slots. It can cast spells if they don't need spell slots.

With those house rules, in what circumstances would a caster ever cast this spell? If your intent is to keep it from doing anything useful, it would be more honest simply to ban it.

[Segev]

Alright, there are some misconceptions as to what the devil simulacrum is "meant" to do. Please note that it does not say it creates a copy of you. It can, of course, but it is not limited to that. Given its material requirements, it is meant to be used to mimic other creatures. A simulacrum is supposed to be an illusion good enough to fake BEING the target creature nearly completely. It's an illusionist's "create doppelganger" spell.

They also are not particularly more powerful than mind-controlled minions, which (say) dominate can pull off at comparable levels. As can - though the means of getting them in place to cast it is now less than clear in 5e - planar binding.

Simulacra are also not full-on extra characters, at least not if you're copying spellcasters. They specifically cannot regain spell slots. They also cannot grow in power, which means no leveling up, no new feats, no learning new skills, etc. (The twisty efforts to read them as meaning "they cannot cast simulacrum because that would increase their power" are baseless, since merely HAVING the spell prepared means they already have, at creation, the power to have a simulacrum. That's not an increase in power any more than saying a simulacrum of a fighter can't pick up a sword because that would increase his power over not having one.)

If you don't want "simulacrum chains," then just come to a gentlemen's agreement with your players.

[N810]

You could argue they couldn't cast Simulacrum because the spell slot was already used up in their creation.
so they would resolve as a wizard who just cast Simulacrum, this would limit the copies to the number of high level slots the original had.

[RickAllison]

You could argue they couldn't cast Simulacrum because the spell slot was already used up in their creation.
so they would resolve as a wizard who just cast Simulacrum, this would limit the copies to the number of high level slots the original had.

This is already known. However, a 7th level cast of Similacrum still potentially has another 7th (IIRC, there might just be one), an 8th, and most importantly a 9th that can be used to cast Wish to replicate it for free. I realize there are three pages to go through, but please take the effort.

[Blinkdog]

Honest question: Is all of this REALLY an issue? I mean... really... does this actually come up at actual tables in real life? I'm genuinely curious.

For this to be a problem, you need a couple of things:

a) A high level campaign. This already eliminates a huge chunk of actual play. There are no official stats on this, but my guess is, the vast majority of play time is spent between levels 5-15. Even in AL, where this supposedly is the biggest problem, there are no modules I know of, that are played at LVL 15+.

b) A player actually willing to use this against the DMs will (because if the DM is ok with it, there is no problem). If the players self-regulate for the good of the game, this doesn't come up.

c) The inability to talk to said player and come to an agreement. At this point we're talking about a guy, who specifically tries to ruin the game and the hard work his DM put into his campaign. What kind or people are you sitting at the table with???

I just don't see it, to be honest. I think, in actual real life D&D play this either doesn't come up at all or, worst-case Scenario, needs about 30 seconds of discussion amongst the group to settle the issue.
Is this just another thing, that gets totally blown out of proportion on the internet?

[smcmike]

Is this just another thing, that gets totally blown out of proportion on the internet?

Is this even a question?

[jas61292]

By RAW the Simulacrum is friendly to you and your party as well as obeying anything you say.

As others mentioned, obeying verbal commands doesn't mean they can't do things that would work against you. Fiction (particularly SciFi) is rife with examples of this.

I also think you put far too much stock in the term "friendly." Mechanically, friendly means they are predisposed to help you. That however does not mean they will do anything against their nature just because it benefits you, and it does mean they would never to anything to harm you. They might not do so directly, and would only ever do so with good reasoning, but they could certainly do so.

This is a common mistake I see people make, more with stuff like Charm Person, but it also applies here. If you charm a guard so they are friendly, they are still not going to let you into the place they are guarding. Sure, you help your friends, but a person who wants you to do something that would cost you your job is not your friend. Not allowing them in, and even reporting them to their superiors if they try to sneak in should be normal and expected, even if they are charmed.

Back to simulacrum, your simulacrum is a copy of a person. It would have the same personality as that person. And while it will of course follow direct orders, how it does so is based on its personality and other traits. Furthermore, because it has that personality, unless it is ordered to do things, it would act like that person would, which might involve something that is to the detriment of the original caster. They would not be trying to hurt the caster, but if that is a side effect of them doing what they think needs to be done, there is nothing against that. And when you think about the kind of person who would want a army of simulacra, you can start to realize that the things they would think need to be done might not be the most ideal for the caster.

And this is not even addressing the fact that attitudes change. There is nothing in the spell that states the simulacrum's attitude cannot change, just like any other creature. And no, simply stating that it is friendly doesn't mean it is always friendly forever. Charm Person says the charmed creature is friendly, but it never says "while charmed" or "for the duration" with regard to the friendliness. I doubt anyone would argue Charm Person makes someone friendly forever. Based on a RAW reading of spells, all Simulacrum does with regard to attitude is set their initial outlook. It doesn't do anything to prevent that outlook from changing.

[Segev]

Ehhhhh....

If charm person can't help you convince a guard to let you past, then it really is kind-of a worthless spell. Given how pathetically weak the Charmed condition is in 5e, and how many things hang their hat on it, either they really meant enchanters to be useless, or the text they chose for the effects needs to be read far more generously than the usual narrow "this and only this" reading we tend to give rules.

That said, I think you're grossly underselling its ability, even given the RAW under a restrictive reading: Being Charmed means that the caster has Advantage on persuasion rolls. That's roughly a +5 bonus. Charm person also makes the target friendly, altering DCs considerably (I'm told it's practically a +20 shift to the roll, if going from "hostile" to "friendly"). So yes, you probably could, with Advantage, persuade a guard to let you into the castle if he's Friendly to you. He just needs an excuse and to be convinced it's not that big of a deal/risk to himself. ("Just 10 minutes, please! It's life or death, man!")


Similarly, trying to "clever DM" the simulacrum into being a hazard to the caster and his party is just DM dickery. It isn't clever, it isn't smart, and it isn't balancing anything. It's punishing players for using class features. The spell goes out of its way to put the simulacrum under the control of the caster. If you have issues with the spell, don't pretend that it's worse than it is in other ways to punish people for using it; talk to people about your issues and come to a gentlemen's agreement, like mature friends and acquaintances who all want to play a fun game together.

[jas61292]

Ehhhhh....

If charm person can't help you convince a guard to let you past, then it really is kind-of a worthless spell. Given how pathetically weak the Charmed condition is in 5e, and how many things hang their hat on it, either they really meant enchanters to be useless, or the text they chose for the effects needs to be read far more generously than the usual narrow "this and only this" reading we tend to give rules.

That said, I think you're grossly underselling its ability, even given the RAW under a restrictive reading: Being Charmed means that the caster has Advantage on persuasion rolls. That's roughly a +5 bonus. Charm person also makes the target friendly, altering DCs considerably (I'm told it's practically a +20 shift to the roll, if going from "hostile" to "friendly"). So yes, you probably could, with Advantage, persuade a guard to let you into the castle if he's Friendly to you. He just needs an excuse and to be convinced it's not that big of a deal/risk to himself. ("Just 10 minutes, please! It's life or death, man!")


Similarly, trying to "clever DM" the simulacrum into being a hazard to the caster and his party is just DM dickery. It isn't clever, it isn't smart, and it isn't balancing anything. It's punishing players for using class features. The spell goes out of its way to put the simulacrum under the control of the caster. If you have issues with the spell, don't pretend that it's worse than it is in other ways to punish people for using it; talk to people about your issues and come to a gentlemen's agreement, like mature friends and acquaintances who all want to play a fun game together.

I don't disagree with what you are saying in general. Its more about how people treat it. Yes, getting a guard to let you in somewhere is perfectly plausible. But I have seen many people act like simply casting the charm and then asking is going to work, when normally that won't. I mean, if you were being paid to not let anyone in somewhere and your friend comes up and asks "will you let me in," in all likelihood, you are saying "no." What's more, Charm Person doesn't even make them your friend. It makes them a "friendly acquaintance." If you wouldn't let a friend in, you most certainly won't let in that guy who you like, but aren't good friends with.

Now, would you be able to convince them to let you in? Absolutely. But that requires persuasion of some kind. Being friendly doesn't make them do anything. It makes them more likely to help, sure, but you still need reason. So, in other words, charm person can help you convince a guard to let you pass, but it cannot make the guard let you pass. You need to do the latter part.

So again, coming back to simulacrum, you will be on good terms with your simulacrum. But if you are a crazy person trying to take over the world with clones of yourself, your simulacra will be equally crazy and ambitious, and might possibly do things that are beneficial to them, but not you. It won't do it to screw you over, but it may to so to further its own goals.

[mrumsey]

Ehhhhh....

If charm person can't help you convince a guard to let you past, then it really is kind-of a worthless spell. Given how pathetically weak the Charmed condition is in 5e, and how many things hang their hat on it, either they really meant enchanters to be useless, or the text they chose for the effects needs to be read far more generously than the usual narrow "this and only this" reading we tend to give rules.

That said, I think you're grossly underselling its ability, even given the RAW under a restrictive reading: Being Charmed means that the caster has Advantage on persuasion rolls. That's roughly a +5 bonus. Charm person also makes the target friendly, altering DCs considerably (I'm told it's practically a +20 shift to the roll, if going from "hostile" to "friendly"). So yes, you probably could, with Advantage, persuade a guard to let you into the castle if he's Friendly to you. He just needs an excuse and to be convinced it's not that big of a deal/risk to himself. ("Just 10 minutes, please! It's life or death, man!")


Similarly, trying to "clever DM" the simulacrum into being a hazard to the caster and his party is just DM dickery. It isn't clever, it isn't smart, and it isn't balancing anything. It's punishing players for using class features. The spell goes out of its way to put the simulacrum under the control of the caster. If you have issues with the spell, don't pretend that it's worse than it is in other ways to punish people for using it; talk to people about your issues and come to a gentlemen's agreement, like mature friends and acquaintances who all want to play a fun game together.

To your own point, using class abilities to do this (Simulacum/Wish) is also just dickery, though to a way larger scale. It also isn't clever. It also isn't smart. It also isn't balancing anything. If you are punishing a group for playing with you, you are the problem. Anyone who would do it knows that the game would functionally end for the whole group(they are either clever enough to see it, or read it - and the consequences - on an internet forum). The classes who can pull this off have many other horrible powerful options at their disposal that are equally fun and less dickish (though only slightly at times). The only point at which this dickery is equivalent to your example DM dickery is if it is a one person game, at which point it is probably fine and agreed upon (no dickery involved) as those games are highly flexible (and more rare than games at 15+ level).

Dickery. Fun word. Thanks for giving me an excuse to use it an OBSCENE number of times. :smallsmile:

EDIT: Changed bolded words from Game to Group, because brain.

[Segev]

So again, coming back to simulacrum, you will be on good terms with your simulacrum. But if you are a crazy person trying to take over the world with clones of yourself, your simulacra will be equally crazy and ambitious, and might possibly do things that are beneficial to them, but not you. It won't do it to screw you over, but it may to so to further its own goals.

If I were a crazy person trying to take over the world with an army of clones of me, I'd view my simulacra as extensions of "me," and would expect my simulacra to view themselves similarly. They all share my knowledge, goals, and dreams, and know (individually) that they are not the real one, and thus that their only hope for reaching those dreams is the real one reaching them. Kind of like the Other's callings in Girl Genius.

[Shaofoo]

Ehhhhh....

If charm person can't help you convince a guard to let you past, then it really is kind-of a worthless spell. Given how pathetically weak the Charmed condition is in 5e, and how many things hang their hat on it, either they really meant enchanters to be useless, or the text they chose for the effects needs to be read far more generously than the usual narrow "this and only this" reading we tend to give rules.

That said, I think you're grossly underselling its ability, even given the RAW under a restrictive reading: Being Charmed means that the caster has Advantage on persuasion rolls. That's roughly a +5 bonus. Charm person also makes the target friendly, altering DCs considerably (I'm told it's practically a +20 shift to the roll, if going from "hostile" to "friendly"). So yes, you probably could, with Advantage, persuade a guard to let you into the castle if he's Friendly to you. He just needs an excuse and to be convinced it's not that big of a deal/risk to himself. ("Just 10 minutes, please! It's life or death, man!")

While Advantage could be said that it is a +5 average bonus the whole friendly is meaningless because that is only codified in 3.x . Of course this can extend further that the target is friendly as in wanting to help out a stranger, not that you have been life long buds with the target; you are not his childhood friend or blood brother, you are a stranger that he is willing to help out. You won't get past a restricted area that he was tasked to guard or the merchant won't let you get a deep discount or even the five finger discount on his stuff, you are a stranger.

The guard might not let you in regardless of his feelings to you but that doesn't mean that you can take advantage of the situation. You could easily distract the guards with a small plea for help while your rogue friend sneaks in the area (This is a team game) or even when things go hairy you could use Charm Person to convince the guard to let you go with a warning and a promise to never go again.

[Segev]

While Advantage could be said that it is a +5 average bonus the whole friendly is meaningless because that is only codified in 3.x .

I'm told, but have not independently confirmed (as I do not own the book), that the DMG actually does give some useful definitions for what "friendly," "hostile," and other such terms used in the PHB to describe NPC attitudes mean. Apparently, things that are DC 20 to persuade a "hostile" person to do are closer to DC 1 if the person is "friendly."

[smcmike]

If I were a crazy person trying to take over the world with an army of clones of me, I'd view my simulacra as extensions of "me," and would expect my simulacra to view themselves similarly. They all share my knowledge, goals, and dreams, and know (individually) that they are not the real one, and thus that their only hope for reaching those dreams is the real one reaching them. Kind of like the Other's callings in Girl Genius.

If you are a crazy person, clones of you are also crazy people. I wouldn't trust crazy people, if I were you, though then again, I'm not crazy.

[mrumsey]

I'm not crazy.

That doesn't sound like something a sane person would say...

LOCK HIM UP GUYS!

[JoeJ]

Alright, there are some misconceptions as to what the devil simulacrum is "meant" to do. Please note that it does not say it creates a copy of you. It can, of course, but it is not limited to that. Given its material requirements, it is meant to be used to mimic other creatures. A simulacrum is supposed to be an illusion good enough to fake BEING the target creature nearly completely. It's an illusionist's "create doppelganger" spell.

They also are not particularly more powerful than mind-controlled minions, which (say) dominate can pull off at comparable levels. As can - though the means of getting them in place to cast it is now less than clear in 5e - planar binding.

Simulacra are also not full-on extra characters, at least not if you're copying spellcasters. They specifically cannot regain spell slots. They also cannot grow in power, which means no leveling up, no new feats, no learning new skills, etc. (The twisty efforts to read them as meaning "they cannot cast simulacrum because that would increase their power" are baseless, since merely HAVING the spell prepared means they already have, at creation, the power to have a simulacrum. That's not an increase in power any more than saying a simulacrum of a fighter can't pick up a sword because that would increase his power over not having one.)

This. It creates a nearly perfect duplicate of anybody (or at least, anybody you can get access to for 12 hours), and the most interesting thing people can think of to do with it is add an NPC to the party? As if that were more useful than, say, having a spy in the BBEG's inner circle?


If you don't want "simulacrum chains," then just come to a gentlemen's agreement with your players.

My agreement is to ignore RAW and rule according to RAI: there can be only one.

[Shaofoo]

This. It creates a nearly perfect duplicate of anybody (or at least, anybody you can get access to for 12 hours), and the most interesting thing people can think of to do with it is add an NPC to the party? As if that were more useful than, say, having a spy in the BBEG's inner circle?


Because why have a spy when you can have a wizard, easily the most broken and powerful of creatures ever conceived by the gods and what better wizard than YOU the best wizard. Sure you could try to be creative and smart but why do all that when you can just have your clone teleport in and alpha strike the BBEG with every spell ever while you are chillaxing in the beach sipping some chilled DM tears, shaken not stirred.

But seriously, I would agree that creating a clone to infiltrate is a good idea but it gets lost in the "Does it have spells? if it doesn't then it sucks" mentality.

[Temperjoke]

My agreement is to ignore RAW and rule according to RAI: there can be only one.

"And henceforth a simulacrum of a simulacrum shall endeavor to ensure that they are the true simulacrum by defeating their creator in honorable, respectful one-on-one combat, with the winner keeping his head."

[Toofey]

Not by the RAW. It has the stats of the creature it looks like, with the specific exceptions listed.


Is there no language limiting the Simulacrum's level in 5th ed, back in 2nd (which seems to be a lot of the basis for 5th) it was explicit that a Simulacrum fully empowered with other spells would also only have 20-50% of the replicated target's level.

[Shaofoo]

I'm told, but have not independently confirmed (as I do not own the book), that the DMG actually does give some useful definitions for what "friendly," "hostile," and other such terms used in the PHB to describe NPC attitudes mean. Apparently, things that are DC 20 to persuade a "hostile" person to do are closer to DC 1 if the person is "friendly."

There is a system that lets you treat something like this in the DMG but it is up to the DM to decide this and it also comes with some caveats. The definition for hostile includes "A person might be so hostile to you that there is no way to improve his relations and any such checks is an automatic failure" and "Whether the creature can shift attitude is towards the adventurers is up to you"

Note that the best you can do is a DC 20 check on Friendly which means "Takes significant risks or sacrifices to do as asked", but of course that isn't still "do as I ask no questions, carte blanche". If the penalty for finding out you let a person in is death then I wouldn't let the friend get in because that is much much more than a "significant risk" in my book.

But regardless yes a system does exist but the DM isn't beholden to necessarily act on it (like nearly everything in the DMG) and it even starts out that such a system should be invisible to players.

[Segev]

I would agree that creating a clone to infiltrate is a good idea but it gets lost in the "Does it have spells? if it doesn't then it sucks" mentality.Less true in 5e than in 3e, though it still is true. For the simulacrum, in particular, however, it's notworthy that it gets one complement of spells, minus at LEAST the spell slot used to create it, when copying its creator.

And, assuming non-wish castings, I'm now amused by the image of a bald wizard who went bald because he plucked out all his hair making simulacra of himself.


Is there no language limiting the Simulacrum's level in 5th ed, back in 2nd (which seems to be a lot of the basis for 5th) it was explicit that a Simulacrum fully empowered with other spells would also only have 20-50% of the replicated target's level.Nope. In 5e, they have half the original's hit points, but that's the closest thing to retaining the 50% level business.


There is a system that lets you treat something like this in the DMG but it is up to the DM to decide this and it also comes with some caveats. The definition for hostile includes "A person might be so hostile to you that there is no way to improve his relations and any such checks is an automatic failure" and "Whether the creature can shift attitude is towards the adventurers is up to you"

Note that the best you can do is a DC 20 check on Friendly which means "Takes significant risks or sacrifices to do as asked", but of course that isn't still "do as I ask no questions, carte blanche". If the penalty for finding out you let a person in is death then I wouldn't let the friend get in because that is much much more than a "significant risk" in my book.

But regardless yes a system does exist but the DM isn't beholden to necessarily act on it (like nearly everything in the DMG) and it even starts out that such a system should be invisible to players.Eh, given how much of the PHB references this, it should probably be used by any DM who doesn't' want to effectively invalidate multiple spells and abilities. Regardless, "the DM can ignore this" is true for...well, the whole game. To have a useful discussion about the game, we have to assume that anything we're dealing with is going to use the rules that support it. Or call it broken because it's unsupported.

[Malifice]

Why do you keep stating these house rules? By RAW the Simulacrum is friendly to you and your party as well as obeying anything you say. If you tell it to tell its simulacrum to follow your orders, it will do it. End of story.

Plot Pretzel.

Theyre not house rules mate. Its RAW.

[Segev]

Theyre not house rules mate. Its RAW.

Completely house rules, since you're ignoring the fact that the simulacrum has to do what you say. So if you tell it to create a simulacrum and have that simulacrum be as obedient to you as the one to which you're talking is, that's that.

No, you don't get to take "as obedient as you are" and have it somehow twist into "...as you'd like to be." No, there is no wiggle room for the simulacrum to use "exact words" and "literal genie" interpretations. They're under your control. Period. You're not being "clever" by "discovering" a "loophole" in the rules with which to punish your players for daring to use their powers. You're using DM fiat to punish your players for doing something you don't want them to do.

[krugaan]

Theyre not house rules mate. Its RAW.

NewDM keeps quoting "Plot Pretzel" so often I think he doesn't like any twists or turns in his plot at all. He prefers:

the "narrative churro"

or the "uncooked spaghetti of suspense"

or "drama donut holes"

... the Biscotti of Bildungsromanse. Big words! Not gonna even bother checking if I spelled that right!

[RickAllison]

NewDM keeps quoting "Plot Pretzel" so often I think he doesn't like any twists or turns in his plot at all. He prefers:

the "narrative churro"

or the "uncooked spaghetti of suspense"

or "drama donut holes"

... the Biscotti of Bildungsromanse. Big words! Not gonna even bother checking if I spelled that right!

Now I'm hungry... Where is the almond extract for my biscotti?

[SharkForce]

i think he just prefers that you don't have to try to read the rules in really suspect ways, add all kinds of ridiculous unstated rules, and basically ambush the player (not the character, which is perfectly fine) by trying to twist the spell against them on the basis that the rules don't say they can't.

in any event, i've already had this discussion before (with the same people that are still firmly convinced of a completely ridiculous interpretation that more than anything seems designed to screw over anyone who tries to use the spell in any way as punishment for trying to use the spell at all). several times. my advice remains the same:

use a simple house rule or gentleman's agreement. yes, it would be nice if WotC had included that rule. they probably should have. but, since we all know it's a problem, just fix it and carry on with your life. it's a lot better than trying to have a discussion with people who insist that there are invisible extra words in the spell that prevent the combo from working.

because seriously, this discussion has been had before, repeatedly, and it isn't going to go anywhere new any time soon.

[krugaan]

i think he just prefers that you don't have to try to read the rules in really suspect ways, add all kinds of ridiculous unstated rules, and basically ambush the player (not the character, which is perfectly fine) by trying to twist the spell against them on the basis that the rules don't say they can't.

in any event, i've already had this discussion before (with the same people that are still firmly convinced of a completely ridiculous interpretation that more than anything seems designed to screw over anyone who tries to use the spell in any way as punishment for trying to use the spell at all). several times. my advice remains the same:

use a simple house rule or gentleman's agreement. yes, it would be nice if WotC had included that rule. they probably should have. but, since we all know it's a problem, just fix it and carry on with your life. it's a lot better than trying to have a discussion with people who insist that there are invisible extra words in the spell that prevent the combo from working.

because seriously, this discussion has been had before, repeatedly, and it isn't going to go anywhere new any time soon.

that's probably why all intelligent discussion on the subject is pretty much finished. Now we're on to the "straight foods + storytelling" metaphors.

[Shaofoo]

Eh, given how much of the PHB references this, it should probably be used by any DM who doesn't' want to effectively invalidate multiple spells and abilities. Regardless, "the DM can ignore this" is true for...well, the whole game. To have a useful discussion about the game, we have to assume that anything we're dealing with is going to use the rules that support it. Or call it broken because it's unsupported.

While it is true that the DM can ignore any rules I only go out of my way to reference optional rules where the text says, banning Simulacrum is not in the rules because there is nothing in the text that says to ask the DM to see which spells is available, the game expects you to put in all spells, the same can be said for classes and races except for the two DMG classes and the flying races (both come with text that says to ask DM permission).

Also I assume that a Dm that ignores the DMG will instead use his own rules to deal with the situation. He can ignore a system but it is expected for him to make something up that replaces it.

Basically it is an optional rule if the text itself treats it as optional. You can wish to discuss it but I don't consider it as part of the base game. Charm person does not require the DMG to work but it does require a DM to actually see how it will all pan out.

[Vogonjeltz]

1) there is in fact only one under the wizard's direct control.
2) that means that they can't level up or learn proficiencies. A simulacra can cast spells, so if the creature that it originates from can cast wish, the simulacra can. If it would work as you think, the simulacra couldn't conjure monsters or use charm spells, which makes no sense.

1) Being a Duplicate means the simulacrum is also you, so both would be under 'your' direct control.

2) Proficiencies are never actually mentioned, you're extrapolating on first restriction in the core statement: "The simulacrum lacks the ability to learn or become more powerful", in the same way I'm extrapolating on the second restriction. I never said they can't cast spells. I only said the spell text specifies that the simulacrum can't become more powerful. If the spell would do so, they can't use it to their advantage because they're specifically prohibited from such a benefit by the spell text.

[wunderkid]

1) Being a Duplicate means the simulacrum is also you, so both would be under 'your' direct control.

2) Proficiencies are never actually mentioned, you're extrapolating on first restriction in the core statement: "The simulacrum lacks the ability to learn or become more powerful", in the same way I'm extrapolating on the second restriction. I never said they can't cast spells. I only said the spell text specifies that the simulacrum can't become more powerful. If the spell would do so, they can't use it to their advantage because they're specifically prohibited from such a benefit by the spell text.

I'm hugely against the simulacrum cheese but even I think you're taking the RAW here WAY too literally and if we apply that same level of interpretation to the entire book the whole system will break utterly.

When it says yours it clearly means the player/caster, any subsequent 'you's wouldn't be truely you, but a copy of you but at the same time it is also you but not the real you, you see?. It's a debate in semantics and could be argued either way until the cows come home.

For the second point they don't directly become more 'powerful', no more so than taking a step up a hill might put them in a more advantagous position and increase their power. Or picking up a big stick would make them more powerful. If you're following it that strictly then the simulacrum can't exist at all because any action it could take could invariably give it more power. That statement is there to tell us that you can't start tagging on extra features or increasing its core skills any more so than when it was created.

[mgshamster]

1) Being a Duplicate means the simulacrum is also you, so both would be under 'your' direct control.

Eh.... I'm not so sure.

If the argument that it's also you and therefore the other sims created by it are under your control, then it must also be true that since it's also you, it's another sim being cast by you and therefore any other sim created by you is destroyed.

Which is fine and eliminates the infinite sims (with ruby dust being our limiting reagent), but not how it seems to be written.

[NewDM]

This is already known. However, a 7th level cast of Similacrum still potentially has another 7th (IIRC, there might just be one), an 8th, and most importantly a 9th that can be used to cast Wish to replicate it for free. I realize there are three pages to go through, but please take the effort.

Not only that but people forget that the Simulacrum is permanent until dispelled. So you can just rest a day then have it copy you with your full complement of spell slots.


NewDM keeps quoting "Plot Pretzel" so often I think he doesn't like any twists or turns in his plot at all. He prefers:

the "narrative churro"

or the "uncooked spaghetti of suspense"

or "drama donut holes"

... the Biscotti of Bildungsromanse. Big words! Not gonna even bother checking if I spelled that right!

Shhh. I'm trying to start my own 5E meme.


1) Being a Duplicate means the simulacrum is also you, so both would be under 'your' direct control.

2) Proficiencies are never actually mentioned, you're extrapolating on first restriction in the core statement: "The simulacrum lacks the ability to learn or become more powerful", in the same way I'm extrapolating on the second restriction. I never said they can't cast spells. I only said the spell text specifies that the simulacrum can't become more powerful. If the spell would do so, they can't use it to their advantage because they're specifically prohibited from such a benefit by the spell text.

You are both right. Here's how it would go:

DM "You come to a fork in the hallway that goes left and right. What do you do?"
Player "Ok, my simulacrum and I head in opposite directions"
DM "you don't control your simulacrum."
Player "I tell my simulacrum to go left while I go right."
DM "Ok, now tell me how you would react to stepping into a gelatinous cube, only its not you, its your simulacrum?"

Pointless is pointless.

[Zalabim]

With those house rules, in what circumstances would a caster ever cast this spell? If your intent is to keep it from doing anything useful, it would be more honest simply to ban it.

Concentration: Doesn't prevent wishing for simulacrums, but you have to use it on the same day you make it and they wouldn't flood the world with an infinite loop.

9th level: Prevents infinite loops with wish.

Can't speak: Seems flavorful, prevents infinite loops with wish, reduces breadth of the spell while still giving you a perfectly obedient copy of a beast or humanoid.

Doesn't have spell slots: Similar to three, just seems like casting a spell to make spell slots is as crazy as wishing for wishes, but for the long cast time.

It's just suggestions. I'm not saying to change everything all at once right off the bat.

[Gtdead]

Or you can just disallow the simulacrum to cast wish. This solves any stupid problem that arises from this. Simulacrum can't do the loop combo, and the wizard can't use them as 1500 gp risk free Wish rings, wishing for the materials for 15 more Simulacra.

I provided a reason to not let them do it. Wish is a spell that mortals cast. Simulacrum is a golem.

[Segev]

The problem really isn't the simulacrum casting wish. The reason people want to use it that way is due to a problem with wish and how it's written.

[Gtdead]

Although I'm not really sure about your point, if wish is the problem, ban it. Case closed.

On the other hand, we talk about a supposedly poorly written spell that doesn't see play in 95% of games, if what most people in this forum say is to be believed, and we theorize what happens when the spell is abused beyond it's scope. I don't see many people actually complain about wish. There are just not enough strong spells in the game that benefit from turning their cast time into one action other than simulacrum (and perhaps something like planar binding?). The versatility it provides is nice, but there are other nice things that lvl 9 slots do, like true polymorph, foresight etc.

Everything else the spell does is risky. It is subject to DM's interpretation, it leaves a nasty debuff and there is a chance to not be able to cast it again.

[Segev]

Although I'm not really sure about your point, if wish is the problem, ban it. Case closed.

On the other hand, we talk about a supposedly poorly written spell that doesn't see play in 95% of games, if what most people in this forum say is to be believed, and we theorize what happens when the spell is abused beyond it's scope. I don't see many people actually complain about wish. There are just not enough strong spells in the game that benefit from turning their cast time into one action other than simulacrum (and perhaps something like planar binding?). The versatility it provides is nice, but there are other nice things that lvl 9 slots do, like true polymorph, foresight etc.

Everything else the spell does is risky. It is subject to DM's interpretation, it leaves a nasty debuff and there is a chance to not be able to cast it again.

No, no, the problem simulacrum solves with wish is in a "balance feature" of wish: When you make a wish that isn't replicating a lower level spell, you have a 1/3 chance of never being able to cast wish again. This is hideously stupid. The simulacrum abuse is to make a simulacrum and force it to use wish on your behalf; it doesn't matter whether it has a 1/3 chance to never be able to cast it again, because it wouldn't ever get another 9th level spell slot, anyway, and you can just make another one tomorrow.

Edit: Rereading your post, I see you recognize the "balance feature," but don't see it as a problem. My response is more to you appearing ot think I was saying wish was too strong, rather than noting that the reason we're encouraged to use simualcra to proxy-cast wish is because that "balance feature" is a stupid, terrible bit of game design.

[Gtdead]

Oh, I misunderstood. Although there's an easy solution for this in any home game.

[NewDM]

Something you aren't taking into account is that Simulacrum is a 7th level spell, meaning the caster can cast it with their only 7th level spell slot at 15th level, rest for a day. Then the Simulacrum casts the spell on the now fully restored caster that has all spell slots back. Then the 2nd simulacrum has a 7th and 8th level slot to repeat the process. Its abusable as low as 15th level.

The DMG page 38 says at 15th you should start with 5,000gp + 1d10 x 250 or on average 6375. So you can cast it (or have it chained) 6375 / 1,500 = 4 times. So RAW you can have 4 copies of yourself with 4 concentration spells active, 4x the spell slots, and 4x the actions.

My preferred house rule to fix this spell is to ban snow and ice to prevent casting of this spell. Very few other things need snow or ice to work, unlike rubies.

[Segev]

Oh, I misunderstood. Although there's an easy solution for this in any home game.Absolutely. The proper solution to this isn't being "clever" and punishing the player for abusing it, but instead to discuss it OOC and come to a gentlemen's agreement about how the spell(s) will be used in your game.


Something you aren't taking into account is that Simulacrum is a 7th level spell, meaning the caster can cast it with their only 7th level spell slot at 15th level, rest for a day. Then the Simulacrum casts the spell on the now fully restored caster that has all spell slots back. Then the 2nd simulacrum has a 7th and 8th level slot to repeat the process. Its abusable as low as 15th level.Sure. At 1500 gp per simulacrum, you can have a small army of simulacra with up to 6th level spell slots. (an 8th level slot, if you don't have the simulacra expend those on simulacrum)

1500 gp per not-quite-full complement of spell slots is good! But not what people are mostly concerned over.

[Gtdead]

My preferred house rule to fix this spell is to ban snow and ice to prevent casting of this spell. Very few other things need snow or ice to work, unlike rubies.

Can't the wizard just cast control weather to get around this one?
Also creating a universe with no ice or snow just to get rid of one spell? Good out of the box thinking, but taking away one of the more important aspects of nature just to ban simulacrum is unreasonable, unless you want to run a campaign about a drought.

[Shaofoo]

Can't the wizard just cast control weather to get around this one?
Also creating a universe with no ice or snow just to get rid of one spell? Good out of the box thinking, but taking away one of the more important aspects of nature just to ban simulacrum is unreasonable, unless you want to run a campaign about a drought.

He is just trolling at this point. He just tries to be clever when he is not.

Also fyi NewDM that won't work by RAW. You can get around the snow and ice requirement with an arcane focus or a spell pouch which while it doesn't make sense at all is within the rules. You just need rubies to make the spell work. The text even says that the ruby dust is the only thing that is consumed. It isn't so out of the box thinking as it is just not reading the rules.

[2D8HP]

I'm interested in um... critiquing art, so if you can provide a link to that thread, I'd appreciate it.

It's only became of my GREAT HUMILITY that I tear myself from VITAL RESEARCH to further your arts education.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?431289-Dungeons-and-Dreamboats-VII-Come-for-the-Art-Stay-for-the-Arguments/page28

[JoeJ]

Concentration: Doesn't prevent wishing for simulacrums, but you have to use it on the same day you make it and they wouldn't flood the world with an infinite loop.

9th level: Prevents infinite loops with wish.

Can't speak: Seems flavorful, prevents infinite loops with wish, reduces breadth of the spell while still giving you a perfectly obedient copy of a beast or humanoid.

Doesn't have spell slots: Similar to three, just seems like casting a spell to make spell slots is as crazy as wishing for wishes, but for the long cast time.

It's just suggestions. I'm not saying to change everything all at once right off the bat.

That doesn't answer my question, though. With the limits you've given it, why would anybody ever cast Simulacrum? What can you do with it that can't be accomplished much better in some other way?

[Asmotherion]

Ok, it's simple enough actually. If you feel uncomfortable with it, simply ban it, or modify wish so that it needs material components.

Or agree with your players that they cannot perform this combo.

It's up to a DM to decide things. Also if other players get jealous from the army that is created, maybe next time they should make a wizard or sorcerer. Just sayin...

I, as a DM, feel completely comfortable with a player creating an army.

[Segev]

Also if other players get jealous from the army that is created, maybe next time they should make a wizard or sorcerer. Just sayin...

Hm. I wonder if a "Warlord" archetype for Fighter is not a good idea.

Base it on the 1e AD&D fighter feature to build a keep and get followers. (Technically, magic-users, thieves, and clerics got to do this, too, in various ways, at certain levels.) The end goal would be to have an army at one's disposal; going into it would require some thought as to what the appropriate third level features would be to start building towards this.

[NewDM]

It's only became of my GREAT HUMILITY that I tear myself from VITAL RESEARCH to further your arts education.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?431289-Dungeons-and-Dreamboats-VII-Come-for-the-Art-Stay-for-the-Arguments/page28

Thank you for your humility and furtherment of my um... arts education.


Hm. I wonder if a "Warlord" archetype for Fighter is not a good idea.

Base it on the 1e AD&D fighter feature to build a keep and get followers. (Technically, magic-users, thieves, and clerics got to do this, too, in various ways, at certain levels.) The end goal would be to have an army at one's disposal; going into it would require some thought as to what the appropriate third level features would be to start building towards this.

Just off the top of my head:

At 3rd level the Warlord gains a traveling companion of half their level. The companion can be commanded by the Warlord as to do something such as "attack", "run away", "stabilize that ally". If commanded in this way the Warlord may only make half the normal number of attacks they can normally make in a round. When not ordered to do something the DM controls the traveling companion. The player rolls all dice for the companion. If a companion is reduced to half hit points or less, they must make a DC 15 Charisma save. On a failure they flee the cause of the loss of hit points until out of sight. A dead companion can be replaced by searching a town for a suitable replacement for 8 hours and spending 10 gold per level of the new companion. Companions are leveled up when the player levels up and do not count against XP.

At 7th level the Warlord gains a small military unit composed of a number of followers equal to their Charisma score. These followers are chosen from Commoner, Guard, Noble, Scout, Spy, Thug, and Tribal Warrior. These followers start friendly to the Warlord and cost 1 gold each per month to maintain. If they do not get paid, they desert at the first opportunity. They do not obey obviously dangerous or suicidal orders. They follow the same rules as the traveling companion, but do not gain levels. The DM controls them completely. They will not enter a combat unless there is a good chance they think they will survive. They can be sent to do tasks that don't seem outrageous to them such as returning to the city carrying dead party members to get raised, or holding off a group of kobolds while the rest of the party takes care of the Dragon. Other than the scout and spy they will not willingly leave the Warlord to scout an unknown and possibly dangerous area. If the followers are threatened by or face anything that is above CR 2 they will flee until out of sight.

At 10th level the Warlord gains a small plot of land containing a castle or small town. They gain taxes from it in the order of 100gp per month as long as they defend it and keep it well maintained. Normally if manned by the Warlords followers small attacks by weaker creatures are fended off and order is maintained.

At 15th level the Warlord gains 50 more followers that follow the rules of the 7th level feature.

At 18th level the Warlord becomes a noble, king, or chief of a much larger plot of land. They gain a castle that can withstand a standard siege as well as 10 knights that will quest for the Warlord. They can gain an unlimited number of followers as long as they continue to pay for their upkeep, and their taxes increase to 1000 gp per month.

[Vogonjeltz]

I'm hugely against the simulacrum cheese but even I think you're taking the RAW here WAY too literally and if we apply that same level of interpretation to the entire book the whole system will break utterly.

When it says yours it clearly means the player/caster, any subsequent 'you's wouldn't be truely you, but a copy of you but at the same time it is also you but not the real you, you see?. It's a debate in semantics and could be argued either way until the cows come home.

For the second point they don't directly become more 'powerful', no more so than taking a step up a hill might put them in a more advantagous position and increase their power. Or picking up a big stick would make them more powerful. If you're following it that strictly then the simulacrum can't exist at all because any action it could take could invariably give it more power. That statement is there to tell us that you can't start tagging on extra features or increasing its core skills any more so than when it was created.

Eh, I think it hinges on the use of the term duplicate. I can't think of a similar situation offhand, so I don't agree (superficially) with the idea that this breaks the system otherwise. If you think there's a problem somewhere else in the book could you elaborate?

In terms of the word power, they do become more powerful by virtue of controlling others. That's literally power defined, there's zero semantic wiggle room here, it's the meaning of the word.

I'm not saying the simulacrum can't take actions that 'ought' to make it more powerful, I'm just saying that the spell specifies it can't benefit from those actions. (i.e. It can run through the paces of doing pushups ad naseum, but it would never get stronger. It could cast wish for money and magic items and incredible stats and so on till it's blue in the face, but all of those wishes would fizzle because they violate the specific rule against power increase).


Eh.... I'm not so sure.

If the argument that it's also you and therefore the other sims created by it are under your control, then it must also be true that since it's also you, it's another sim being cast by you and therefore any other sim created by you is destroyed.

Which is fine and eliminates the infinite sims (with ruby dust being our limiting reagent), but not how it seems to be written.

I think I understood the second sentence, and...yes, there could only ever be one sim. If the simulacrum cast the spell it would end itself, the problem being there would now be an uncontrolled simulacrum on the loose.

Actually it does raise the interesting question of what the Simulacrum does if its master is destroyed. Do they just go on, impersonating the creature they're duplicating? There's a lot of fun possibilities there for the DM in terms of storylines to be told.


DM "Ok, now tell me how you would react to stepping into a gelatinous cube, only its not you, its your simulacrum?"

The DM should not reveal anything the simulacrum sees once out of sight, the players aren't there to experience it. If I had a player do this, I'd model the simulacrum's actions once out of sight based on a) the last instructions given by the player and b) the actual way the player has their character react (because that's an honest representation of how they react to a previously unknown situation). If the simulacrum encounters a problem, I'd basically figure out what I think they'd do, and if they'd survive.

In no case does the character get to affect the simulacrum once it's outside range of their voice.

[NewDM]

The DM should not reveal anything the simulacrum sees once out of sight, the players aren't there to experience it. If I had a player do this, I'd model the simulacrum's actions once out of sight based on a) the last instructions given by the player and b) the actual way the player has their character react (because that's an honest representation of how they react to a previously unknown situation). If the simulacrum encounters a problem, I'd basically figure out what I think they'd do, and if they'd survive.

In no case does the character get to affect the simulacrum once it's outside range of their voice.

That was mostly in there as a joke/sarcasm. It would have been funnier if I had said:
DM "Incidentally, what would be your characters reaction be to walking into a gelatinous cube? From a purely theoretical standpoint, mind you."