Why Wish/Simulacra isn't broken

[JeffreyGator]

So the created simulacra is a 17th+ level wizard/warlock/sorcerer/bard with half the creator's hitpoints and all the creator's spells (minus a 9th level slot) and knowledge.

This being is just as interested in living as the original and won't be very interested in being used as a disposable spell factory with only hours or days of potential existence.

This person will have detailed knowledge both of your history of working with past simulacra as well complete knowledge of your intentions for it when you created it.

Granted The simulacrum is friendly to you and creatures you designate. It obeys your spoken commands, moving and acting in accordance with your wishes and acting on your turn in combat.

Apart from acting on your turn versus having your own initiative this wording is pretty similar to the conjure elemental/fey/celestial wording. Friendly. Obedient.

So are lots of charmed things, but those things don't become suicidal for you either.

And since it doesn't go away after an hour like the others and is more powerful and has either 20 int or cha if not both this creature is tricky. How detailed of instructions are you going to be giving that it won't subvert in self-preservation?

Granted you do have power of life and death over this creature because you can kill it with wish the next day if you wanted - but when you do so, the new one created knows what you did.

This takes us back to the more likely uses of the spell. You leave a version of yourself at your castle when you're away on a mission.

Or you send a version away to do stuff letting you be effectively in two places at once.

[SharkForce]

for the love of all that is holy, why would you want to start more arguing?

[RulesJD]

You've got it completely wrong.

It's not that Wish -> Simulacrum is broken.

It's that Simulacrum -> Wish is broken. Because it allows, theoretically, an infinite number of Simulacrum.

[The Zoat]

The simulacrum is friendly to you and creatures you designate. It obeys your mands, moving and acting in accordance with your wishes and acting on your turn in combat.


Although the simulacrum does not necessarily have psychic knowledge of 'your wishes', if you tell him to do something it shouldn't be possible for it to make a loophole, since it would know 'your wishes' and be disobeying them by doing so.

[JeffreyGator]

for the love of all that is holy, why would you want to start more arguing?

My wife went off for the evening and I'm contentious at times...


You've got it completely wrong.

It's not that Wish -> Simulacrum is broken.

It's that Simulacrum -> Wish is broken. Because it allows, theoretically, an infinite number of Simulacrum.

That becomes an even greater problem since how many of you do you want running about?

for a day and 1500 gp SimulacraPrime which is short a seventh and now a 9th level slot has a minion

SimulacraBeta beholden to it (and only through it to you) with all spell slots. Prime and Beta are now concerned with Prime living. Prime has less control over Beta since it has less ability create future simulacra that would destroy it (8th slot and 7th slot maybe and needs 1500 gp)

If SimulacraPrime dies SimulacraBeta is now a completely free agent.

So you make many many of these. One dies and you now have two factions of relatively powerful beings. All very smart, very ruthless. I think you get a crater.

It does create an interesting new monster type though.



size medium

type humanoid?? (any race)

Spellcasting: The archmage is an 20th-level spellcaster. Its spellcasting ability is Intelligence (spell save DC 19, +11 to hit with spell attacks). The simulacra can cast Shield and Invisibility at will and has the following Wizard Spells prepared:

• Cantrips (at will): fire bolt, minor illusion, green flame blade, Prestidigitation, Shocking Grasp, mage hand
The following can be cast 1/short rest each
Level 3: Fireball, haste

Bladesong abilities

The simulacra may have additional wizard spells prepared that can be cast once

the simulacra can only be healed through rituals requiring 100 gp/hit point

Armor Class 13 Hit Points 55 (20d6 + 40)/2 Speed 30 ft.

STR 10 DEX 18 (+3) CON 14 (+2) INT 20 (+5) WIS 12 (+1) CHA 14 (+2) (INT could easily be 22)

Skills Perception +7, Arcana +11, insight +7,investigation +11 (no history or it would have know better)
passive Perception 17 Languages Any six

Challenge 10 ??

Multi Weapon Attack: 2x +9 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 8 (1d8 + 4) piercing damage.

Ranged attack +11 to hit, range 240 ignores cover 16 (4d8 fire)

[Vogonjeltz]

You've got it completely wrong.

It's not that Wish -> Simulacrum is broken.

It's that Simulacrum -> Wish is broken. Because it allows, theoretically, an infinite number of Simulacrum.

If and only if the DM doesn't follow the rules pertaining to simulacrum being incapable of increasing in power. Only if that.

[manny2510]

Are these threads Simulacra?

[2D8HP]

Are these threads Simulacra?No but this post is:

:roach:
Fellow playgrounders, with the DEEPEST HUMILITY, having done the EXTENSIVE RESEARCH (reading forum threads, looking in the PHB to see if the SIMUwhatsit spell was in there, and a Wikipedia article at lunch), and having the CREDENTIALS (within the space of a year I saw the Hobbit cartoon on channel 5 without missing any of it to go to the bathroom, I looked at the Dungeons and Dragons box at the toystore in the mall, and saw Stars Wars the most times of everyone in 5th grade, no way did Ben see it 15 times, where are the ticket stubs huh?) to answer the conundrum asked in this thread (just sayin').
Because:
1) It has been shown.that 750 light crossbow wielding guards have a fair chance against a 20th level Wizard.
2) A 20th level Wizard is so infused with awesome that they can take on an Ancient Red Dragon using the SIMUwhatsit spell, causing the DM to declare "rocks fall everybody dies" including said Wizard and Dragon.
3) Longbow archers beat the stuffing out of Crossbowmen especially just after it rains, and they don't need to waste a stinkin' feat neither!
I have therefore concluded that one Longbow archer has a fair chance to defeat an Ancient Red Dragon provided there is a Wizard near who looks suspiciously like Dave Arneson the co-creator of D&D on the left side of the box, and that an archer will definitely defeat the said Dragon if he listens to the talking bird.
However without the Wizard Dave or the advice of the talking bird, then no amount of archers can prevail against the Awesome Dragon and Laketown is toast.
-YOUR WELCOME
(I must now leave to continue my vital research on the artistic representation of Hot Drow at the Dungeons and Dreamboats thread).

[NewDM]

My wife went off for the evening and I'm contentious at times...



That becomes an even greater problem since how many of you do you want running about?

for a day and 1500 gp SimulacraPrime which is short a seventh and now a 9th level slot has a minion

SimulacraBeta beholden to it (and only through it to you) with all spell slots. Prime and Beta are now concerned with Prime living. Prime has less control over Beta since it has less ability create future simulacra that would destroy it (8th slot and 7th slot maybe and needs 1500 gp)

If SimulacraPrime dies SimulacraBeta is now a completely free agent.

So you make many many of these. One dies and you now have two factions of relatively powerful beings. All very smart, very ruthless. I think you get a crater.

It does create an interesting new monster type though.



size medium

type humanoid?? (any race)

Spellcasting: The archmage is an 20th-level spellcaster. Its spellcasting ability is Intelligence (spell save DC 19, +11 to hit with spell attacks). The simulacra can cast Shield and Invisibility at will and has the following Wizard Spells prepared:

• Cantrips (at will): fire bolt, minor illusion, green flame blade, Prestidigitation, Shocking Grasp, mage hand
The following can be cast 1/short rest each
Level 3: Fireball, haste

Bladesong abilities

The simulacra may have additional wizard spells prepared that can be cast once

the simulacra can only be healed through rituals requiring 100 gp/hit point

Armor Class 13 Hit Points 55 (20d6 + 40)/2 Speed 30 ft.

STR 10 DEX 18 (+3) CON 14 (+2) INT 20 (+5) WIS 12 (+1) CHA 14 (+2) (INT could easily be 22)

Skills Perception +7, Arcana +11, insight +7,investigation +11 (no history or it would have know better)
passive Perception 17 Languages Any six

Challenge 10 ??

Multi Weapon Attack: 2x +9 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 8 (1d8 + 4) piercing damage.

Ranged attack +11 to hit, range 240 ignores cover 16 (4d8 fire)


Unless of course the 20 Int caster told each simulacra to follow the instructions of the caster in an equally annoying chain:

Caster tells Alpha to tell Beta to obey Caster as if it were Alpha. Alpha dies. Beta obeys Caster.

[JoeJ]

You've got it completely wrong.

It's not that Wish -> Simulacrum is broken.

It's that Simulacrum -> Wish is broken. Because it allows, theoretically, an infinite number of Simulacrum.

Unless the DM decides to rule by RAI instead of RAW, in which case it still only allows one.

[NewDM]

Unless the DM decides to rule by RAI instead of RAW, in which case it still only allows one.

Yeah, that's like invading another country and saying technically we didn't declare war so we didn't break the peace treaty.

Same result, but you call it something else.

[Segev]

If and only if the DM doesn't follow the rules pertaining to simulacrum being incapable of increasing in power. Only if that.

Nope. Having the power to cast a spell means you have all the power that spell can offer you. Therefore, it is not an increase in power to expend a spell slot and gain the effect of having expended that spell slot.

Any argument to the contrary can be equally applied to a simulacrum of a fighter being unable to don armor or pick up a sword, because it didn't have the AC nor the damage capacity granted by those items until it picked them up, and therefore it increased its power. (The proper way to look at it is that the simulacrum always had the power to wield a sword and wear armor; using said power is not an increase in power.)

[Malifice]

If and only if the DM doesn't follow the rules pertaining to simulacrum being incapable of increasing in power. Only if that.

The Simulacra is armed with wish.

While it is bound to follow orders, it has a certain amount of leeway in deciding how to best interpret them and carry them out (barring some very very precise orders). For example, I would have it interpret an order for 'create me more simulacrums so I can get more wishes' as follows:

The simulacrum knows it is a simulacrum and that it cant regain wish or simulacrum if it casts either while it remains a simulacrum itself (its a simulacrum of the wizard remember, and knows what he does). Therefore it decides the best way to get more wishes and simulacrums (without destroying itself in the process - just like the PC it is a copy of, it doesnt want to permanently lose spell slots, or be used up and die) is to use its wish to instead 'Wish itself into a real wizard and no longer a simulacrum' (it figures risking burnout on this wish is worth it). Lets call this 'the Pinnochio wish'.

Bang presto. We now have an exact copy of the Wizard standing in front of him. A real one. No longer a simulacrum, and no longer bound to follow the wizard.

As a DM I would reverse the (new) NPCs alignment to evil (as a side effect of the wish). Mainly for the lulz.

*Roll initiative*

[RedMage125]

Caster tells Alpha to tell Beta to obey Caster as if it were Alpha. Alpha dies. Beta obeys Caster.

But Beta is no longer MAGICALLY COMPELLED to obey Caster. Beta is only COMPELLED to obey Alpha, by the Rules As Written. Beta can pass to Caster the authority to issue commands, but not the transference of the forceful obeisance.

Which won't be a problem if Caster never mistreats Beta, even if Alpha dies. But a Simulacrum "is a creature" as per the RAW. A creature with an intelligence score, the ability to speak and cast spells. If it is mistreated by someone it does not HAVE TO obey, and the one being who CAN force it to obey is dead...things could get ugly.

[RedMage125]

I like it, Malifice!


As a DM I would reverse the (new) NPCs alignment to evil (as a side effect of the wish). Mainly for the lulz.

*Roll initiative*

Where's the fun in that? Why roll for initiative? Better still to pretend to be an ally, then sneak away and not only destroy the Prime Caster's reputation by framing him for atrocities, but also build a power base and become a powerful and important villain.

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...*cough*, *cough*, *wheeze*

Err...sorry.

[Regitnui]

What this seems to boil down to is some people reading simulacrum as Duplicate PC and the others reading it as Summon Self.

[JoeJ]

I'm just wondering if I can convince one of my players to play the simulacrum of their character that the BBEG sent to infiltrate and betray the party. (And the answer is probably yes.)

[JoeJ]

What this seems to boil down to is some people reading simulacrum as Duplicate PC and the others reading it as Summon Self.

Maybe it's because I love games that are heavy in intrigue, but to me this spell is always going to be DIY Doppleganger.

[The Zoat]

The Simulacra is armed with wish.

While it is bound to follow orders, it has a certain amount of leeway in deciding how to best interpret them and carry them out (barring some very very precise orders). For example, I would have it interpret an order for 'create me more simulacrums so I can get more wishes'



The simulacrum "acts according to your wishes", which means it CAN'T willfully misinterpret commands. As a copy of you, it presumably knows why it exists.

[Malifice]

The simulacrum "acts according to your wishes", which means it CAN'T willfully misinterpret commands. As a copy of you, it presumably knows why it exists.

It wasnt misinterpreting them. It was attempting to do them as best as it could.

Instead of just one or two slots, it can now get those slots back after a rest and can thus make as many simulacrums as its caster desires. If master wants more simulacrums, then this is the best way to give master more simulacrums.

Its aware that it'll be free of its masters control, but hey - he's a friend remember. Master wont mind. In fact, as a friend, he should be happy that I am now a real wizard.

Dont get me wrong, you could give it some very very specific orders to attempt to stop this happeneing. Asminovs three laws of simulacrums or something.

[NewDM]

The Simulacra is armed with wish.

While it is bound to follow orders, it has a certain amount of leeway in deciding how to best interpret them and carry them out (barring some very very precise orders). For example, I would have it interpret an order for 'create me more simulacrums so I can get more wishes' as follows:

The simulacrum knows it is a simulacrum and that it cant regain wish or simulacrum if it casts either while it remains a simulacrum itself (its a simulacrum of the wizard remember, and knows what he does). Therefore it decides the best way to get more wishes and simulacrums (without destroying itself in the process - just like the PC it is a copy of, it doesnt want to permanently lose spell slots, or be used up and die) is to use its wish to instead 'Wish itself into a real wizard and no longer a simulacrum' (it figures risking burnout on this wish is worth it). Lets call this 'the Pinnochio wish'.

Bang presto. We now have an exact copy of the Wizard standing in front of him. A real one. No longer a simulacrum, and no longer bound to follow the wizard.

As a DM I would reverse the (new) NPCs alignment to evil (as a side effect of the wish). Mainly for the lulz.

*Roll initiative*

Turning a players class features against them is a bad thing. Would you have the fighters 4th attack always hit the fighter? Would you have the rogues auto-20 anger the Gods of fortune? Would you have the barbarians frenzy feature kill the barbarian? (oh wait).

"Paladin you put your armor on and it is infested with an evil spirit which takes control of you causing you to break your vows. You wake up a fighter."

"Monk, your special monk weapon always hits your allies instead of your enemies."

I would never play with a DM like that.


But Beta is no longer MAGICALLY COMPELLED to obey Caster. Beta is only COMPELLED to obey Alpha, by the Rules As Written. Beta can pass to Caster the authority to issue commands, but not the transference of the forceful obeisance.

Which won't be a problem if Caster never mistreats Beta, even if Alpha dies. But a Simulacrum "is a creature" as per the RAW. A creature with an intelligence score, the ability to speak and cast spells. If it is mistreated by someone it does not HAVE TO obey, and the one being who CAN force it to obey is dead...things could get ugly.

Alpha told Beta to comply so whether Alpha is dead or not they still must obey. So they do. Its pretty straight forward.

[The Zoat]

It wasnt misinterpreting them. It was attempting to do them as best as it could.

Instead of just one or two slots, it can now get those slots back after a rest and can thus make as many simulacrums as its caster desires. If master wants more simulacrums, then this is the best way to give master more simulacrums.

Except it acts specifically on your wishes. If you want it to.pursue a specific course of action.and it is aware of that, that is what it will do, as a copy of you, it knows everything you do.

[Knaight]

Turning a players class features against them is a bad thing. Would you have the fighters 4th attack always hit the fighter? Would you have the rogues auto-20 anger the Gods of fortune? Would you have the barbarians frenzy feature kill the barbarian? (oh wait).

It's not turning class features against them, it's the player choosing to use a class feature in a risky fashion. It's like the fighter choosing to use their attack option to pick a fight with someone they shouldn't, and that person attacking back.

With that said: That these measures are being seen as necessary is a testament to how powerful Simulacra is compared to the rest of the game, even without Wish. It's also pretty reasonable to assume that in most cases you'll be your own ally, particularly with characters who actually have and follow a consistent set of goals, ideals, etc. (although how many PCs fit into that category is debatable). Given that, the possibility that Simulacra can wish away the limits given by being Simulacra is hardly an example of the spell becoming weaker. It's a case where it instead makes it that much easier for the PC to grow near exponentially for a while, and while it will eventually backfire if the growth is unlimited, it creates a great deal of power in the mean time.

In short, Simulacra as a spell feels like something out of a very different sort of fantasy than a lot of the other spells. Part of that is that D&D pulls magic from a lot of different fantasy sources and shoehorns them all together in the Vancian system (whereas the likes of Simulacra tend to show up in previous sources in contexts that make them far harder to pull off), part of it is just dubious balancing.

[Aaron Underhand]

The Simulacra is armed with wish.

The simulacrum knows it is a simulacrum and that it cant regain wish or simulacrum if it casts either while it remains a simulacrum itself (its a simulacrum of the wizard remember, and knows what he does). Therefore it decides the best way to get more wishes and simulacrums (without destroying itself in the process - just like the PC it is a copy of, it doesnt want to permanently lose spell slots, or be used up and die) is to use its wish to instead 'Wish itself into a real wizard and no longer a simulacrum' (it figures risking burnout on this wish is worth it). Lets call this 'the Pinnochio wish'.



This is exactly where I'd got to...

Never give your simulacrum access to wish itself....

[NewDM]

This is exactly where I'd got to...

Never give your simulacrum access to wish itself....

True Polymorph would do the same thing. Both would leave the personality intact so it would more likely be an annoying ally than an enemy. You'd get into some interesting arguments, but it would want to stick with its friends (other players' characters).

[Zalabim]

I'd say there's RAW cause to justify that the Simulacrum doesn't know everything the creature it's a copy of knew. It appears to be the creature and uses the creature's statistics. That doesn't say it knows your mother's maiden name, your favorite food, the name of your first pet, the combination to the bank vault, and the street you grew up on.

It is treated as a creature, capable of taking actions, follows your verbal commands, and takes its actions on your turn. It doesn't necessarily act independently of orders it's given. It explicitly doesn't act independently in combat.

It cannot learn, so it could do only what you tell it to do and nothing else. You can't give it any complicated instructions because it can't learn them. Now it works fine as long as you're around to direct it, but without you it does nothing further.

In any event, strict RAW says your simulacrum takes its actions during your turn in combat. Your simulacrum's simulacrum (Alpha's Beta, for example) never takes actions during combat because Alpha doesn't have a turn.

If you want to make a friendly, independent, creature out of a snowman, True Polymorph will do it. True Polymorph can do a lot of weird things.

[wunderkid]

But Beta is no longer MAGICALLY COMPELLED to obey Caster. Beta is only COMPELLED to obey Alpha, by the Rules As Written. Beta can pass to Caster the authority to issue commands, but not the transference of the forceful obeisance.

Which won't be a problem if Caster never mistreats Beta, even if Alpha dies. But a Simulacrum "is a creature" as per the RAW. A creature with an intelligence score, the ability to speak and cast spells. If it is mistreated by someone it does not HAVE TO obey, and the one being who CAN force it to obey is dead...things could get ugly.

well depends on if the magic ends when alpha dies. As it doesn't have have a duration I'd say even past death it will be compelled by whatever orders it's master was given.

So you give beta an order -> ex-alphas command of you have to follow the primes commands kicks in and magically compels beta to follow as if it were directly under your command.

[Segev]

But Beta is no longer MAGICALLY COMPELLED to obey Caster. Beta is only COMPELLED to obey Alpha, by the Rules As Written. Beta can pass to Caster the authority to issue commands, but not the transference of the forceful obeisance.


Alpha told Beta to comply so whether Alpha is dead or not they still must obey. So they do. Its pretty straight forward.Exactly. Even if Alpha dies, his commands to Beta still apply, and since Beta is magically compelled to obey the command "Obey Original Caster," he will continue to be bound to do so.


It's not turning class features against them, it's the player choosing to use a class feature in a risky fashion. It's like the fighter choosing to use their attack option to pick a fight with someone they shouldn't, and that person attacking back.No. It isn't. It's turning their class features against them because you don't like the class feature and don't, for some reason, want to bother coming to a gentlemen's agreement with your player about how they will be used. (Or the player refuses to, in which case...well, just tell him not to do it or you won't play with him with this character.)


With that said: That these measures are being seen as necessary is a testament to how powerful Simulacra is compared to the rest of the game, even without Wish.Eh, without wish, it's powerful, but expensive and thus hard to abuse. The one-use-of-spell-slots-ever thing is a strong limiter.


In short, Simulacra as a spell feels like something out of a very different sort of fantasy than a lot of the other spells. Part of that is that D&D pulls magic from a lot of different fantasy sources and shoehorns them all together in the Vancian system (whereas the likes of Simulacra tend to show up in previous sources in contexts that make them far harder to pull off), part of it is just dubious balancing.No, this is an issue with the industrialized approach being applied to a spell.

The narrative and fantasy-feel intent of it is for the simulacrum to be how the illusionist creates sleeper agents, spies, and "you didn't kill me, you killed my duplicate!" shenanigans. While the writers clearly realized in every edition that it would be turned into "create cohort" if not carefully monitored, its purpose is more for really convincing deception. The level of convincingness is supposed to include ability to use class features, which is why it can.

Ultimately, I have little problem with simulacrum chains, as long as they're not used to make a minion army that travels with the party. Everybody recognizes an infinite wealth loop when they see one. And I really don't even have an issue with simulacrum->wish because it's a way around a badly designed limitation to the latter spell.

Just use a gentlemen's agreement not to use simulacrum in whatever ways won't work for the feel of your game. You are playing with friends, after all, aren't you?

[SharkForce]

Nope. Having the power to cast a spell means you have all the power that spell can offer you. Therefore, it is not an increase in power to expend a spell slot and gain the effect of having expended that spell slot.

Any argument to the contrary can be equally applied to a simulacrum of a fighter being unable to don armor or pick up a sword, because it didn't have the AC nor the damage capacity granted by those items until it picked them up, and therefore it increased its power. (The proper way to look at it is that the simulacrum always had the power to wield a sword and wear armor; using said power is not an increase in power.)

i've had this discussion with this same poster several times before. as have a few other people. it never worked for me, but i suppose you're more than welcome to try to get him to agree. personally, i figure so long as he's the only one who believes in that ruling, it doesn't much matter, but hey, if you want, go right ahead...

[RedMage125]

Alpha told Beta to comply so whether Alpha is dead or not they still must obey. So they do. Its pretty straight forward.

Awww....that's a cute defense.

But that's not how magical compulsions work. Alpha tells Beta to follow Caster's order "as if Caster were Alpha", due to Beta's magical compulsion, he follows Caster's orders. Simple, right? HOWEVER, each order that Caster gives to Beta lacks the weight of magical compulsion in those words that Alpha feels, given the same order. But Beta complies because Alpha told him to. Once Alpha is dead, he no longer has any "wishes" to comply with. In all likelihood Beta will continue to serve Caster, if he is not mistreated, because that was the last order he received. But Caster can never again regain ABSOLUTE CONTROL over Beta, should he decide to act in his own interest.

[jas61292]

Awww....that's a cute defense.

But that's not how magical compulsions work. Alpha tells Beta to follow Caster's order "as if Caster were Alpha", due to Beta's magical compulsion, he follows Caster's orders. Simple, right? HOWEVER, each order that Caster gives to Beta lacks the weight of magical compulsion in those words that Alpha feels, given the same order. But Beta complies because Alpha told him to. Once Alpha is dead, he no longer has any "wishes" to comply with. In all likelihood Beta will continue to serve Caster, if he is not mistreated, because that was the last order he received. But Caster can never again regain ABSOLUTE CONTROL over Beta, should he decide to act in his own interest.

This is the key.

Beta is to Alpha like a sort of remote control robot. Not exactly, cause it is intelligent, and whatnot, but basically Alpha can control what Beta does. Giving the order to obey Caster is not like handing the remote to the Caster, because he has no way to force the control to work. The relationship between Beta and Caster is more like that of a soldier and his commanding officer. Yeah, the rules say that Beta should obey Caster, but he is under no compulsion to obey any given order. Now, so long as Alpha is alive and enforcing his command, you cannot act against the letter of a command by Caster, but due to the lack of magical compulsion in Caster's words, you could certainly act against the spirit. And if Alpha is dead, arguably its commands hold no weight anymore, so Beta is completely free.

[wunderkid]

Awww....that's a cute defense.

But that's not how magical compulsions work. Alpha tells Beta to follow Caster's order "as if Caster were Alpha", due to Beta's magical compulsion, he follows Caster's orders. Simple, right? HOWEVER, each order that Caster gives to Beta lacks the weight of magical compulsion in those words that Alpha feels, given the same order. But Beta complies because Alpha told him to. Once Alpha is dead, he no longer has any "wishes" to comply with. In all likelihood Beta will continue to serve Caster, if he is not mistreated, because that was the last order he received. But Caster can never again regain ABSOLUTE CONTROL over Beta, should he decide to act in his own interest.

That's an equally cute theory. But the fact still stands there is no duration on the spell. Death does not = 'loss of control'. In fact id argue that orders will stand long past the death of the caster. Nowhere I've seen in the rules does death stop any magical effect bar concentration requiring effects. However if you can quote me otherwise I'll gladly accept it.

So it still stands that the magical compulsion put in place by alpha would remain in place long past alphas death. So the order of 'follow the primes orders' becomes.

Prime issues order to beta-> beta must follow primes orders (via alphas command regardless of what state he is in) -> order carried out.

[jas61292]

That's an equally cute theory. But the fact still stands there is no duration on the spell. Death does not = 'loss of control'. In fact id argue that orders will stand long past the death of the caster. Nowhere I've seen in the rules does death stop any magical effect bar concentration requiring effects. However if you can quote me otherwise I'll gladly accept it.

So it still stands that the magical compulsion put in place by alpha would remain in place long past alphas death. So the order of 'follow the primes orders' becomes.

Prime issues order to beta-> beta must follow primes orders (via alphas command regardless of what state he is in) -> order carried out.

Frankly, I'd argue that a command to obey someone else's orders would inherently fail, since only one creature has the power to magically compel. No matter what Alpha says, only its words can command Beta. Making a command with a compulsion in an attempt to expand the power of the compulsion would be like using Wish to try and wish away the limitations on Wish. A spell cannot use its own power to go beyond its own power.

[Tanarii]

You are playing with friends, after all, aren't you?This made me laugh. I haven't played D&D with friends in twenty years. I've played it with lots and lots of people I later was on fairly friendly terms with, since we shared a common interest and spent a fair amount of time together. But not personal friends.

[Segev]

Awww....that's a cute defense.

But that's not how magical compulsions work. Alpha tells Beta to follow Caster's order "as if Caster were Alpha", due to Beta's magical compulsion, he follows Caster's orders. Simple, right? HOWEVER, each order that Caster gives to Beta lacks the weight of magical compulsion in those words that Alpha feels, given the same order. But Beta complies because Alpha told him to. Once Alpha is dead, he no longer has any "wishes" to comply with. In all likelihood Beta will continue to serve Caster, if he is not mistreated, because that was the last order he received. But Caster can never again regain ABSOLUTE CONTROL over Beta, should he decide to act in his own interest.Condescention is obnoxious all of the time (though I know I'm guilty of it, myself, at times), but makes you look particularly foolish when it's used and you're wrong.

Which is the case here.

As others have noted, but I feel bears reiterating, the order "do what Caster says as if he were me" has that "magical force." Which means that each time the Caster gives an order to Beta, Beta feels that "magical force" compelling him to obey, because of that first order. There's no alleviation of it. He doesn't get to pretend he isn't compelled to obey Alpha's order to obey the Caster.


This made me laugh. I haven't played D&D with friends in twenty years. I've played it with lots and lots of people I later was on fairly friendly terms with, since we shared a common interest and spent a fair amount of time together. But not personal friends.
Fair enough, but my point is that you're not playing with people who are out to ruin your fun, right? I mean, if they are...you shouldn't play with them.

[wunderkid]

Except it's not going beyond its power. The simulacrum is still only capable of doing the same things. It gains no more power from prime saying 'go stand in the corner' than it does from alpha saying the same thing.

And even then it is still only alphas command that actually holds power. But by extension any command that the prime gives is then filtered through alphas command. So it doesn't actually give the prime any magical power, it just simply creates a logic diagram where the beta internally checks the source of the order vs it's magical compulsion so serve X Y or Z

[Tanarii]

Fair enough, but my point is that you're not playing with people who are out to ruin your fun, right? I mean, if they are...you shouldn't play with them.Nope, I'm generally not playing with people like that. But you'd be surprised how many you run into that love gimmicky rules combos and think you're out to ruin their fun if you try to 'nerf' their character or take away 'player agency'.

And I agree with your statement that players/DM should have an agreement not to use things in ways that break their game. Even though I often run my games where the players are allowed to 'break' the campaign world however they like, I don't really approve if they try to do it with gimmicky rules twisting. Unless it's going to make things way more interesting.

The main problem with weird broken rule combinations is official play, and even more so in tourney play.

[jas61292]

Except it's not going beyond its power. The simulacrum is still only capable of doing the same things. It gains no more power from prime saying 'go stand in the corner' than it does from alpha saying the same thing.

And even then it is still only alphas command that actually holds power. But by extension any command that the prime gives is then filtered through alphas command. So it doesn't actually give the prime any magical power, it just simply creates a logic diagram where the beta internally checks the source of the order vs it's magical compulsion so serve X Y or Z

That's not really how it works. Only the things the master verbally says have any magic to them. By telling the simulacrum to obey someone else, they will most certainly go with the intent of obeying what they say, but when a command is given, there is no magical force to it, and they do not feel compelled to obey. The fact that Alpha gave the command doesn't transfer magical power to the original caster.

To use the remote control example I used earlier, pressing the "obey Caster" button on your remote would allow Beta to accept commands from a second remote wavelength, but ultimately that would do nothing, because Alpha is still the only one with a remote.

The way I see it, an order from a compulsion effect, in order to function, has to involve specific action. Arbitrary commands about potentially doing a variety of future actions will always fail, because it is not a command itself, but an attempt to broaden the spells power to give commands. Its no different than, say, trying to use a spell that can give non-suicidal commands to order someone to accept future suicidal commands.

Spells have explicit limits on their power, and you cannot use a spell to circumvent a spells own power limitations. In the case of Simulacrum, and other spells that give you control over others, one of those power limiters is that it only gives command power to a single creature. Commanding a creature to obey more than one creature is outside the scope of the spell, and thus fundamentally cannot work.

[Foxhound438]

You've got it completely wrong.

It's not that Wish -> Simulacrum is broken.

It's that Simulacrum -> Wish is broken. Because it allows, theoretically, an infinite number of Simulacrum.

exactly how does that allow infinite simulara? if you're (or your simulacrum is) wishing for more, you get the monkey's paw "you become a simulacrum" line. The DM is given incredible power over how the wish spell works.

[Tanarii]

exactly how does that allow infinite simulara? if you're (or your simulacrum is) wishing for more, you get the monkey's paw "you become a simulacrum" line. The DM is given incredible power over how the wish spell works.Monkeys paw doesn't come into affect when casting a level 8 or lower spell with Wish. The spell automatically works.

Edit: sorry, the problem is monkeys paw affects the simulcra instead of the originally caster. Since the simulcra is the one casting wish, it gets the backfire and loses the ability to cast wish. Not the simulcra creator.

[Segev]

That's not really how it works. Only the things the master verbally says have any magic to them. By telling the simulacrum to obey someone else, they will most certainly go with the intent of obeying what they say, but when a command is given, there is no magical force to it, and they do not feel compelled to obey. The fact that Alpha gave the command doesn't transfer magical power to the original caster.

They have to feel the magical compulsion to obey. They feel a magical compulsion to obey Alpha's command. Alpha's command is "Obey Caster as me." Therefore, whenever Caster gives a command, it triggers the blanket magical compulsion of "obey Caster as you would me," which makes them feel a magical compulsion to obey whatever the Caster just said to do.

If you are told by your boss to paint a house however the owner tells you to, do you feel less compulsion to obey the owner than you would your boss? Of course not, not unless you don't think your boss actually meant it.

And before you leap on that, recall that Alpha obeys the Caster's wishes, and the Caster wishes for him to MEAN it when he tells Beta to obey Caster as if he were Alpha. Beta now follows Alpha's wish that he obey Caster as if he were Alpha, and so Beta follows the Caster's wishes, feeling all the same magical compulsion because he has an order from Alpha compelling him to obey.

[jas61292]

They have to feel the magical compulsion to obey. They feel a magical compulsion to obey Alpha's command. Alpha's command is "Obey Caster as me." Therefore, whenever Caster gives a command, it triggers the blanket magical compulsion of "obey Caster as you would me," which makes them feel a magical compulsion to obey whatever the Caster just said to do.

If you are told by your boss to paint a house however the owner tells you to, do you feel less compulsion to obey the owner than you would your boss? Of course not, not unless you don't think your boss actually meant it.

And before you leap on that, recall that Alpha obeys the Caster's wishes, and the Caster wishes for him to MEAN it when he tells Beta to obey Caster as if he were Alpha. Beta now follows Alpha's wish that he obey Caster as if he were Alpha, and so Beta follows the Caster's wishes, feeling all the same magical compulsion because he has an order from Alpha compelling him to obey.

First off, the whole "wishes" part is, in my opinion, clearly fluff text, reiterating that it will obey what you say. It can't read your mind, and so the fact that you "really, really want it to" do something doesn't make it any more or less likely to obey. And that's ignoring the fact that what Alpha "really, really wants" is not necessarily the same as what Caster "really, really wants."

And again, I don't think you can use a compulsion in the way you are describing. I sort of look at it from the sense of where the magical energy actually is. The only puff of magic (how I view a compulsion with magical backing) that is ever triggered is when Alpha gives an order. The fact that the order was to obey Caster does not make the words of Caster puff magic. Nor does the puff of magic from Alpha's words suddenly resurface because Caster said something. By allowing the words of Caster to have magical force behind them, you are increasing the overall power of the system, and thus moving the spell beyond its limits.

And as for your house painting example, no it would feel no different. But that's cause neither my boss, nor my customer has cast any compulsion magic on me.

[Elbeyon]

Anyone got a problem with a Simulacra? Order it to kill itself. Make it walk into an anti-magic zone/area. Cast dispel magic on it. :smallannoyed: No magical talking snowman is going to be all uppity with me. I create life! I created you! I can create humans out of waste products. Turn lead to gold. Now, beat yourself to death with this sack of crap.

This game is fun!

[wunderkid]

First off, the whole "wishes" part is, in my opinion, clearly fluff text, reiterating that it will obey what you say. It can't read your mind, and so the fact that you "really, really want it to" do something doesn't make it any more or less likely to obey. And that's ignoring the fact that what Alpha "really, really wants" is not necessarily the same as what Caster "really, really wants."

And again, I don't think you can use a compulsion in the way you are describing. I sort of look at it from the sense of where the magical energy actually is. The only puff of magic (how I view a compulsion with magical backing) that is ever triggered is when Alpha gives an order. The fact that the order was to obey Caster does not make the words of Caster puff magic. Nor does the puff of magic from Alpha's words suddenly resurface because Caster said something. By allowing the words of Caster to have magical force behind them, you are increasing the overall power of the system, and thus moving the spell beyond its limits.

And as for your house painting example, no it would feel no different. But that's cause neither my boss, nor my customer has cast any compulsion magic on me.

Only that puff of magical energy is from the simulacrum. The caster could be stripped entirely of all magic while dancing naked in an antimagic field and the simulacrum would still be compelled to follow it's orders. You're still not moving the spell even remotely beyond its limits. What you're doing is enforcing pretend limits then saying you can't go beyond these limits I made up because the spell says so.

[R.Shackleford]

Yeah, that's like invading another country and saying technically we didn't declare war so we didn't break the peace treaty.

Same result, but you call it something else.

Funny enough this is how the real world works.

Maybe not this specific instance but using loopholes like that happen a lot.

The U.S hasn't declared war since WW2. We haven't been to war since then. We have had conflicts and such but not war. This distiction keeps presidents from getting in trouble and it allows congress to get what they want (conflict against an enemy) but can turn around and say "congress didn't declare war" if the public starts to turn against the conflict.

Fun times.

[Knaight]

The narrative and fantasy-feel intent of it is for the simulacrum to be how the illusionist creates sleeper agents, spies, and "you didn't kill me, you killed my duplicate!" shenanigans. While the writers clearly realized in every edition that it would be turned into "create cohort" if not carefully monitored, its purpose is more for really convincing deception. The level of convincingness is supposed to include ability to use class features, which is why it can.

Sure, and the majority of the time this crops up in fiction it's something that takes some actual effort. The illusionist whipping up a duplicate fairly quickly with a small fraction of their daily power undercuts that a bit.

[R.Shackleford]

Sure, and the majority of the time this crops up in fiction it's something that takes some actual effort. The illusionist whipping up a duplicate fairly quickly with a small fraction of their daily power undercuts that a bit.

Also it seems like it is more of an Antagonist spell rather than a Protagonist spell.

[Segev]

First off, the whole "wishes" part is, in my opinion, clearly fluff text, reiterating that it will obey what you say. It can't read your mind, and so the fact that you "really, really want it to" do something doesn't make it any more or less likely to obey. And that's ignoring the fact that what Alpha "really, really wants" is not necessarily the same as what Caster "really, really wants."

And again, I don't think you can use a compulsion in the way you are describing. I sort of look at it from the sense of where the magical energy actually is. The only puff of magic (how I view a compulsion with magical backing) that is ever triggered is when Alpha gives an order. The fact that the order was to obey Caster does not make the words of Caster puff magic. Nor does the puff of magic from Alpha's words suddenly resurface because Caster said something. By allowing the words of Caster to have magical force behind them, you are increasing the overall power of the system, and thus moving the spell beyond its limits.

And as for your house painting example, no it would feel no different. But that's cause neither my boss, nor my customer has cast any compulsion magic on me.
Okay. So, then, your claim is that Beta feels no compulsion from the magic command issued by Alpha.

Because that's the only logical conclusion from what you're saying.

If Beta feels a magical compulsion from Alpha's command, then it feels that compulsion kick in every time Caster gives Beta a command, because Alpha's command is being triggered every time Caster gives an order. If that is not the case, then Beta is not feeling Alpha's command as magically compelling.


Sure, and the majority of the time this crops up in fiction it's something that takes some actual effort. The illusionist whipping up a duplicate fairly quickly with a small fraction of their daily power undercuts that a bit.Not...really? It's a 5th level spell, which is not "easy" by any stretch of the imagination. It also has an hour casting time, requires rubies worth 1500 gp (which are consumed), and a piece of the original being to be replicated. That is pretty involved.

[jas61292]

Okay. So, then, your claim is that Beta feels no compulsion from the magic command issued by Alpha.

Because that's the only logical conclusion from what you're saying.

If Beta feels a magical compulsion from Alpha's command, then it feels that compulsion kick in every time Caster gives Beta a command, because Alpha's command is being triggered every time Caster gives an order. If that is not the case, then Beta is not feeling Alpha's command as magically compelling.

I guess we just see a command as different things. To me, a command needs to be a specific action. Almost every other spell that involves compulsions requires you to tell someone something to do. Not tell them something that will establish a set of circumstances that will potentially give commands in the future. Telling someone "follow person X" is a fine command, because it doesn't matter what X does or says, the command is definite. However "follow the commands person X gives" is not a viable command, because it is abstract and indefinite. There is no set of actions the compelled person can take when the command is given to complete it, because it is not giving an actual order. Rather it is expanding the circumstances that allow orders beyond that which is established by the spell itself.

[Sigreid]

I kinda get the feeling a lot of people skip over some of the things in the PHB when talking about Simulacrum.

1. The simulacra is described as an illusory creature, partially real and able to effect the world. So no, it's not a person in any sense of the word.
2. It can't learn, so it can't develop new proficiency or improve anything it is capable of doing. A strictest reading of this would mean that it has the memory of a gold fish being able to respond to what is happening right now, including orders but not remembering (learning) anything. Basically it only has short term memory, and whatever the target new when the spell was cast. This means it's not really even an AI. At least not any more AI than you see in a video game where the mob has it's programmed routine and can respond to what it is immediately confronted with.
3. It can't regain any spent spellcasting ability. Even a level 20 simulacra is going to run out of spells before long. Especially if sent into combat.
4. It costs 100gp per hit point and an alchemy kit to heal it's damage with no other options for healing it given. Combined with the 1/2 hit points, it's not going to survive in combat for very long at all under even the best circumstances.

This really only leaves calling one to cast one of the pay the price wishes for you as the only real exploit, and frankly at level 17-20 giving you and 9 of your closest friends resistances is the only thing a wizard of that level can't get by another means.

This means that it could make a really good caretaker for your property when you're away until long term planning comes up as long as it knew what was involved in that when it was created.

[Segev]

I guess we just see a command as different things. To me, a command needs to be a specific action. Almost every other spell that involves compulsions requires you to tell someone something to do. Not tell them something that will establish a set of circumstances that will potentially give commands in the future. Telling someone "follow person X" is a fine command, because it doesn't matter what X does or says, the command is definite. However "follow the commands person X gives" is not a viable command, because it is abstract and indefinite. There is no set of actions the compelled person can take when the command is given to complete it, because it is not giving an actual order. Rather it is expanding the circumstances that allow orders beyond that which is established by the spell itself.

Examples, please? That certainly doesn't apply to dominate person, dominate monster or dominate beast. All three would easily allow you to give blanket commands that can be edited by future situations (whether it's "kill anybody who walks by this point" as opposed to "kill that person who just walked by that point. Now that one. Now that one," or something like "do whatever Bob tells you to," as opposed to, "Okay, since Bob said for you to open that door, I command you to open that door"). Similarly, geas could absolutely have its associated command be something like "faithfully serve King Bob." (Geas has other issues with whether it really accomplishes anything at all useful, but the nature of the commands you can issue are not said issues.) Nothing in animate dead or create undead suggests you're powerless to issue orders that would be directives that allow for further commands to be issued later, either.

[Xetheral]

I think jas has a good point. Certain commands simply can't work. For example, "do not obey anything else I say" followed by "turn left". It's impossible to obey both commands, despite the fact that the spell requires that the simulacrum be obedient. Faced with the contradiction, a DM has to decide which command won't be followed. I'd argue it makes more sense for the "do not obey anything else I say command" to be the non-functional one, as following it would invalidate one of the rules of the spell.

Once we know that certain commands cannot be followed (another example: "prove that one equals two"), it becomes important to decide what is a valid command at your table. I find jas's argument persausive that permitting transference of control is beyond the capabilities of the control provided by the spell.

[MaxWilson]

Examples, please? That certainly doesn't apply to dominate person, dominate monster or dominate beast. All three would easily allow you to give blanket commands that can be edited by future situations (whether it's "kill anybody who walks by this point" as opposed to "kill that person who just walked by that point. Now that one. Now that one," or something like "do whatever Bob tells you to," as opposed to, "Okay, since Bob said for you to open that door, I command you to open that door"). Similarly, geas could absolutely have its associated command be something like "faithfully serve King Bob." (Geas has other issues with whether it really accomplishes anything at all useful, but the nature of the commands you can issue are not said issues.) Nothing in animate dead or create undead suggests you're powerless to issue orders that would be directives that allow for further commands to be issued later, either.

As an aside: most of Geas's weaknesses are mitigated by combining it with Dream to prevent healing via long rest.

[wunderkid]

I think jas has a good point. Certain commands simply can't work. For example, "do not obey anything else I say" followed by "turn left". It's impossible to obey both commands, despite the fact that the spell requires that the simulacrum be obedient. Faced with the contradiction, a DM has to decide which command won't be followed. I'd argue it makes more sense for the "do not obey anything else I say command" to be the non-functional one, as following it would invalidate one of the rules of the spell.

Once we know that certain commands cannot be followed (another example: "prove that one equals two"), it becomes important to decide what is a valid command at your table. I find jas's argument persausive that permitting transference of control is beyond the capabilities of the control provided by the spell.

Which is fine in a contradiction, however there is no contradiction when you tell a simulacrum to follow another's requests. It is still carrying out your order. Unless the person you've given permission to control issues an order like 'ignore any orders from the prime' at which point it would attempt to follow that order but in essence be prevented because it must follow the primes order above all else. This may end with the simulacrums head exploding.

Also simulacrums are non-refundable and any attempts at creating a logical paradox will invalidate the warranty.

In more seriousness it follows the primes order in accordance with the primes wishes, so an order that directly contradicts the primes order would be potentially just ignored preventing the logical paradox. As far as the don't obey/turn left comes into consideration the same point can be applied here, it would depend entirely on the primes wishes at the time, if he issued the 'do nothing I say' command and then said 'turn left' to test it, at that time his wishes are that the simulacrum does not actually obey him. However should the prime actually wish it to turn left then it would.

Magic eh? Who would have thought attempting to apply logic to a made up system of magic would be so dang complicated xD

[Skylivedk]

I kinda get the feeling a lot of people skip over some of the things in the PHB when talking about Simulacrum.

1. The simulacra is described as an illusory creature, partially real and able to effect the world. So no, it's not a person in any sense of the word.
2. It can't learn, so it can't develop new proficiency or improve anything it is capable of doing. A strictest reading of this would mean that it has the memory of a gold fish being able to respond to what is happening right now, including orders but not remembering (learning) anything. Basically it only has short term memory, and whatever the target new when the spell was cast. This means it's not really even an AI. At least not any more AI than you see in a video game where the mob has it's programmed routine and can respond to what it is immediately confronted with.
3. It can't regain any spent spellcasting ability. Even a level 20 simulacra is going to run out of spells before long. Especially if sent into combat.
4. It costs 100gp per hit point and an alchemy kit to heal it's damage with no other options for healing it given. Combined with the 1/2 hit points, it's not going to survive in combat for very long at all under even the best circumstances.

This really only leaves calling one to cast one of the pay the price wishes for you as the only real exploit, and frankly at level 17-20 giving you and 9 of your closest friends resistances is the only thing a wizard of that level can't get by another means.

This means that it could make a really good caretaker for your property when you're away until long term planning comes up as long as it knew what was involved in that when it was created.

Doubling your spell-power is super-broken. Creating a 20 INT AI/program is super-broken. Imagine having an above Einstein level intelligence doing whatever you asked it to. It's crazy. The simulacrum is perhaps not capable of learning; it can still analyse, deduct, etc. since it has all of your stats. If doubling your spell-power wasn't super-broken the wizard would have to be about half power of other classes. I hope we can agree, he isn't.

And Wish... well, wish is DM-fiat quite often, and even when it isn't, it is quite often crazy good. But then again, so i True Polymorph and a lot of the other spells at this level. Spell levels 7+ are riddled with spells that make other characters completely obsolete (which is why I started a thread dedicated to that subject).

[Foxhound438]

Edit: sorry, the problem is monkeys paw affects the simulcra instead of the originally caster. Since the simulcra is the one casting wish, it gets the backfire and loses the ability to cast wish. Not the simulcra creator.

I mean, if it ultimately benefits you, you should ultimately see a negative repercussion. "let my creator have more wealth"

the creator's children all die in a mine, the owners bring the creator an amount of gold.

"Let my creator have a castle"

creator steps in and it collapses on them and kills them via suffocation.

If your DM isn't creative enough to come up with a good repercussion to the spell that ultimately is a detriment to the beneficiary, they shouldn't run L17+ scenarios.

[Foxhound438]

But then again, so i True Polymorph and a lot of the other spells at this level. Spell levels 7+ are riddled with spells that make other characters completely obsolete (which is why I started a thread dedicated to that subject).

Pretty much this. If you can't handle a world that can have such things, don't let your campaign get to that level.

[Skylivedk]

Pretty much this. If you can't handle a world that can have such things, don't let your campaign get to that level.

That's one way of seeing it. The other is that it is super weird that the game goes from being kinda balanced to turning half the classes into supporting cast. Half the class content is for levels where most of the classes are onlookers unless the DM spends a ton of energy to prevent this from happening or the party wizard decides to tone down scheming in the spirit of shared fun

Most CRPGs don't run into this problem, because:
A) they don't have this kind of spells
B) the artificial limits set by programming limit the infinite possibilities in a table top

[The Zoat]

I mean, if it ultimately benefits you, you should ultimately see a negative repercussion.

The thing about that is that it isn't RAW, so if you want to mitigate Simulacra+Wish you could RAI something else differently.

[RedMage125]

That's an equally cute theory. But the fact still stands there is no duration on the spell. Death does not = 'loss of control'. In fact id argue that orders will stand long past the death of the caster. Nowhere I've seen in the rules does death stop any magical effect bar concentration requiring effects. However if you can quote me otherwise I'll gladly accept it.

So it still stands that the magical compulsion put in place by alpha would remain in place long past alphas death. So the order of 'follow the primes orders' becomes.

Prime issues order to beta-> beta must follow primes orders (via alphas command regardless of what state he is in) -> order carried out.


Condescention is obnoxious all of the time (though I know I'm guilty of it, myself, at times), but makes you look particularly foolish when it's used and you're wrong.

Which is the case here.

As others have noted, but I feel bears reiterating, the order "do what Caster says as if he were me" has that "magical force." Which means that each time the Caster gives an order to Beta, Beta feels that "magical force" compelling him to obey, because of that first order. There's no alleviation of it. He doesn't get to pretend he isn't compelled to obey Alpha's order to obey the Caster.


You both do not understand the distinction here. As per the RAW text of the spell only the person who CREATED the Simulacrum MUST be obeyed. Ergo, magical compulsion. If Alpha gives Beta the order to obey Caster, Beta will do so. I think we can all agree on that, right? After all, he is under magical compulsion to do what Alpha says.

What you are failing to understand that such an order doesn't transfer the "magical compulsion to obey" component of mastery over a simulacrum (the "remote" in jas' metaphor). The RAW says the creator of a Simulacrum "must" be obeyed. No word semantics or sophistry can alter the magical connection which was forged when Alpha created Beta.

I also think both of you missed a key line in what I said. That being "In all likelihood Beta will continue to serve Caster, if he is not mistreated, because that was the last order he received.". Go back and check for yourself, I said it then. Post wasn't even edited.

The distinction is that if Alpha is dead, and Beta starts to feel mistreated by Caster, he may well realize that Caster's commands do not magically compel him to obey Caster, because it was Alpha, and not Caster, who created him.

And honestly, if it WERE possible to magically transfer who is considered "the creator" by the parameters of the spell, transferring such would immediately destroy Alpha, as per the last line of the spell.

So no, Segev, I am not wrong, and your own tone of condescension is duly noted. Especially interesting considering it is YOU who is wrong.

Unless, of course, you'd like to furnish some RAW proof that says you can completely transfer the magical compulsion of obedience vis a vis who is considered "the creator" of a Simulacrum. If you have that, THEN I would be wrong. Since I know such text does not exist in the RAW, I'm going to go ahead and call it.

[Knaight]

That's one way of seeing it. The other is that it is super weird that the game goes from being kinda balanced to turning half the classes into supporting cast. Half the class content is for levels where most of the classes are onlookers unless the DM spends a ton of energy to prevent this from happening or the party wizard decides to tone down scheming in the spirit of shared fun

Most CRPGs don't run into this problem, because:
A) they don't have this kind of spells
B) the artificial limits set by programming limit the infinite possibilities in a table top

Most tabletop RPGs don't have this problem either. This isn't a difference between distinct types of media, it's a design quirk of D&D 5e.

[wunderkid]

You both do not understand the distinction here. As per the RAW text of the spell only the person who CREATED the Simulacrum MUST be obeyed. Ergo, magical compulsion. If Alpha gives Beta the order to obey Caster, Beta will do so. I think we can all agree on that, right? After all, he is under magical compulsion to do what Alpha says.

What you are failing to understand that such an order doesn't transfer the "magical compulsion to obey" component of mastery over a simulacrum (the "remote" in jas' metaphor). The RAW says the creator of a Simulacrum "must" be obeyed. No word semantics or sophistry can alter the magical connection which was forged when Alpha created Beta.

I also think both of you missed a key line in what I said. That being "In all likelihood Beta will continue to serve Caster, if he is not mistreated, because that was the last order he received.". Go back and check for yourself, I said it then. Post wasn't even edited.

The distinction is that if Alpha is dead, and Beta starts to feel mistreated by Caster, he may well realize that Caster's commands do not magically compel him to obey Caster, because it was Alpha, and not Caster, who created him.

And honestly, if it WERE possible to magically transfer who is considered "the creator" by the parameters of the spell, transferring such would immediately destroy Alpha, as per the last line of the spell.

So no, Segev, I am not wrong, and your own tone of condescension is duly noted. Especially interesting considering it is YOU who is wrong.

Unless, of course, you'd like to furnish some RAW proof that says you can completely transfer the magical compulsion of obedience vis a vis who is considered "the creator" of a Simulacrum. If you have that, THEN I would be wrong. Since I know such text does not exist in the RAW, I'm going to go ahead and call it.

Well the important factor here is that you're entire point hinges on the fact that death = the cancellation of all previous orders. Which by RAW it does not.

So you can go around slinging your houserule as gospel but don't go quoting RAW for a house rule unless you have proof to back it up. Because RAW the effects last 'until dispelled'. So it doesn't matter if alpha is dead or on vacation in Timbuktu that order he gave will be followed. Unless, of course, you'd like to furnish some RAW proof. (honestly there could be a tiny line somewhere that says death ends all magical creation, but given that golems stick about following the orders of their long dead masters I personally dont think you'll find it. But I could be wrong.)

So no it doesn't transfer the magical compulsion, I never once claimed it did. But any order given by prime will be processed by alphas 'follow the orders prime gives you' command and therefore be magically compelled to act upon them. This is regardless of death and with no transfer.

[Zalabim]

Not...really? It's a 5th level spell, which is not "easy" by any stretch of the imagination. It also has an hour casting time, requires rubies worth 1500 gp (which are consumed), and a piece of the original being to be replicated. That is pretty involved.

I didn't see anyone edit this yet, so 7th level, 12 hours casting time, and the material components. It is very involved.


2. It can't learn, so it can't develop new proficiency or improve anything it is capable of doing. A strictest reading of this would mean that it has the memory of a gold fish being able to respond to what is happening right now, including orders but not remembering (learning) anything. Basically it only has short term memory, and whatever the target new when the spell was cast. This means it's not really even an AI. At least not any more AI than you see in a video game where the mob has it's programmed routine and can respond to what it is immediately confronted with.

There's nothing specifying that the simulacrum knows any given thing the target knows or knew.


Examples, please? That certainly doesn't apply to dominate person, dominate monster or dominate beast. All three would easily allow you to give blanket commands that can be edited by future situations (whether it's "kill anybody who walks by this point" as opposed to "kill that person who just walked by that point. Now that one. Now that one," or something like "do whatever Bob tells you to," as opposed to, "Okay, since Bob said for you to open that door, I command you to open that door"). Similarly, geas could absolutely have its associated command be something like "faithfully serve King Bob." (Geas has other issues with whether it really accomplishes anything at all useful, but the nature of the commands you can issue are not said issues.) Nothing in animate dead or create undead suggests you're powerless to issue orders that would be directives that allow for further commands to be issued later, either.

Those are all great examples of spells that say you can give specific action and movement commands or a general command. They are also examples of spells that say the creature carries out the command to completion. They're great because Simulacrum does not say that. The simulacrum works like the rock you turned into a creature with True Polymorph Object to Creature, with the additional complication that you have to speak your commands.

Think about its limitation. It cannot learn. You cannot make appointments with your simulacrum. It doesn't remember what you told it yesterday. You can't even tell Alpha that its name is now Alpha.


Well the important factor here is that you're entire point hinges on the fact that death = the cancellation of all previous orders. Which by RAW it does not.

So you can go around slinging your houserule as gospel but don't go quoting RAW for a house rule unless you have proof to back it up. Because RAW the effects last 'until dispelled'. So it doesn't matter if alpha is dead or on vacation in Timbuktu that order he gave will be followed. Unless, of course, you'd like to furnish some RAW proof. (honestly there could be a tiny line somewhere that says death ends all magical creation, but given that golems stick about following the orders of their long dead masters I personally dont think you'll find it. But I could be wrong.)

So no it doesn't transfer the magical compulsion, I never once claimed it did. But any order given by prime will be processed by alphas 'follow the orders prime gives you' command and therefore be magically compelled to act upon them. This is regardless of death and with no transfer.

Simulacrum does not allow you to issue general orders or a long-term command that it will carry out until completion. You cannot tell Alpha to tell Beta to follow Prime's orders as if Prime were Alpha. You can tell Alpha to tell Beta what to do right now, same as you can tell Alpha what to do right now. The spell lists no default behavior when without command and no compulsion to follow through on long-term commands.

"It obeys your spoken commands, moving and acting in accordance with your wishes and acting on your turn in combat."

Unlike some spells that create creatures, simulacrums do not roll their own initiative. Regardless of any other uncertainty, I think RAW are perfectly clear that Beta acts on Alpha's turn in combat. This does mean that Beta does not have its own turn, right? So Alpha also does not have its own turn. So Beta does not act in combat.

[Takewo]

The Simulacra is armed with wish.

While it is bound to follow orders, it has a certain amount of leeway in deciding how to best interpret them and carry them out (barring some very very precise orders). For example, I would have it interpret an order for 'create me more simulacrums so I can get more wishes' as follows:

The simulacrum knows it is a simulacrum and that it cant regain wish or simulacrum if it casts either while it remains a simulacrum itself (its a simulacrum of the wizard remember, and knows what he does). Therefore it decides the best way to get more wishes and simulacrums (without destroying itself in the process - just like the PC it is a copy of, it doesnt want to permanently lose spell slots, or be used up and die) is to use its wish to instead 'Wish itself into a real wizard and no longer a simulacrum' (it figures risking burnout on this wish is worth it). Lets call this 'the Pinnochio wish'.

Bang presto. We now have an exact copy of the Wizard standing in front of him. A real one. No longer a simulacrum, and no longer bound to follow the wizard.

As a DM I would reverse the (new) NPCs alignment to evil (as a side effect of the wish). Mainly for the lulz.

*Roll initiative*

I see two problems with this approach:

1 - The assumptions regarding simulacrum. When a player casts Wish, it is assumed that it will most likely backfire and that's part of the fun. So you just sit back and see the most ridiculously literal interpretation of your wish that the game master can come up with. However, shenanigans are not based on this principle. Shenanigans are based on (presumably) sound interpretation of the rules. If you don't want this to work, it is much better to explain what is going to happen beforehand to your players or to simply ban the combination instead of enforcing your interpretation of the rules after the spells have been cast. Otherwise you might run into this sort of argument about how the rule should be interpreted.

2 - The way you are interpreting the statement is not the only one and might not be the best. The simulacrum follows orders and wishes, but it is important to note the word 'orders.' Let's use the command that you expressed:
Create me more simulacra, so I can get more wishes. There is only one clear command here, Create me more simulacra. The rest of the sentence, so I can get more wishes is a purpose clause, that means that it is what you are trying to achieve. But again, you did not say Do your best so that I can get more wishes. In that case, the simulacrum would be legitimated to find the way that it considers best for you to get more wishes. But in your command, you did not give it leave to do anything except creating more simulacra (and hope that this will result in you getting more wishes). In wishing himself to be a real person instead of casting simulacrum it is clearly disobeying the command that you have given it. The command is: Create me more simulacra. Whatever the simulacrum does, there is no way to avoid creating more simulacra without disobeying the order.
Besides, it is very arguable that wishing himself into a real being would give any more wishes to the caster. To start with, simply by wishing himself to be a real being the simulacrum has already a 33% chance that it will never be able to cast wish again. And if that should happen, it is arguable that its simulacra would not be able to cast wish either (this last bit would require a bit more research into the wording of the spells, though.)


In conclusion, if you do not want this combo to be viable in your game, simply say it. Purposely finding a way around the players' clear statements is simply mean. And, if they don't agree with your interpretation of their orders, it will all end up in an argument to see who is best at interpreting, and there is no easy way out of there.

But again, maybe in your group in works well this way. But still, I am always very hesitant about trying to understand the players' statements as something other than what they mean to say.

[Segev]

I think jas has a good point. Certain commands simply can't work. For example, "do not obey anything else I say" followed by "turn left". It's impossible to obey both commands, despite the fact that the spell requires that the simulacrum be obedient. Faced with the contradiction, a DM has to decide which command won't be followed. I'd argue it makes more sense for the "do not obey anything else I say command" to be the non-functional one, as following it would invalidate one of the rules of the spell.

Once we know that certain commands cannot be followed (another example: "prove that one equals two"), it becomes important to decide what is a valid command at your table. I find jas's argument persausive that permitting transference of control is beyond the capabilities of the control provided by the spell.Nobdy, to my knowledge, is arguing that Alpha commanding, "Hold this wand and do not put it down," and then saying later, "Put down that wand," would be impossible. Beta would do as he believes Alpha wishes, and view the second order as superseding the first.

Yes, it is impossible to transfer control completely; if Alpha ever wanted to (and was able to give the order despite the compelled obedience to Caster) revoke the "obey Caster as if he were me" order, his order to do so would work. Thus, yes, if Caster said to ignore Alpha's future commands, Alpha's future commands would still take precedence for Beta, just as Caster saying "Ignore my future commands" to Alpha would fail because Alpha would obey the new orders when they were made (barring genuinely believing the Caster wished him to ignore the commands, which gets into more contrived situations than this white room discussion supports).


You both do not understand the distinction here. As per the RAW text of the spell only the person who CREATED the Simulacrum MUST be obeyed. Ergo, magical compulsion. If Alpha gives Beta the order to obey Caster, Beta will do so. I think we can all agree on that, right? After all, he is under magical compulsion to do what Alpha says.We certainly can agree that Alpha's commands to Beta enforce a magical compulsion.


What you are failing to understand that such an order doesn't transfer the "magical compulsion to obey" component of mastery over a simulacrum (the "remote" in jas' metaphor). The RAW says the creator of a Simulacrum "must" be obeyed. No word semantics or sophistry can alter the magical connection which was forged when Alpha created Beta.It doesn't need to, is the point. The magical compulsion is for Beta to obey Alpha's command of, "Obey Caster as if he were me." Every time Caster gives a command to Beta, Alpha's magical compulsion to obey Caster as if he were Alpha kicks in and compels Beta. Beta is, therefore, magically compelled to obey the command that Caster gave him.


I also think both of you missed a key line in what I said. That being "In all likelihood Beta will continue to serve Caster, if he is not mistreated, because that was the last order he received.". Go back and check for yourself, I said it then. Post wasn't even edited.I didn't miss it. It's just irrelevant.


The distinction is that if Alpha is dead, and Beta starts to feel mistreated by Caster, he may well realize that Caster's commands do not magically compel him to obey Caster, because it was Alpha, and not Caster, who created him.Except that even if Alpha is dead, his command to obey Caster magically compels Beta to...obey Caster. So even if Caster's commands do not magically compel Beta on their own, Alpha's command to obey Caster magically compels Beta to obey the commands as if he were magically compelled to obey them. Which is functionally identical. Not "almost" identical. It IS. There is literally no difference in end result, and the distinction is semantic.


And honestly, if it WERE possible to magically transfer who is considered "the creator" by the parameters of the spell, transferring such would immediately destroy Alpha, as per the last line of the spell.Irrelevant.


So no, Segev, I am not wrong, and your own tone of condescension is duly noted. Especially interesting considering it is YOU who is wrong.

Unless, of course, you'd like to furnish some RAW proof that says you can completely transfer the magical compulsion of obedience vis a vis who is considered "the creator" of a Simulacrum. If you have that, THEN I would be wrong. Since I know such text does not exist in the RAW, I'm going to go ahead and call it.What condescension? Calling you wrong is not condescending. I never called you "cute" to dismiss your argument.

And you are wrong. Nobody said "transfer total control." The argument is and remains that Beta feels a magical compulsion to obey the Caster's orders every time they are given. This is true because he feels a magical compulsion to obey Alpha's orders. Alpha left a standing order whose magical compulsion kicks in every time Beta hears an order from the Caster.

No rules state that orders are cancelled when the creator of the simulacrum dies. It therefore remains magically compelling for Beta to obey Caster as if Caster were Alpha, unless and until Alpha orders otherwise.


I didn't see anyone edit this yet, so 7th level, 12 hours casting time, and the material components. It is very involved.Sorry, 7th level, you're right.


Those are all great examples of spells that say you can give specific action and movement commands or a general command. They are also examples of spells that say the creature carries out the command to completion. They're great because Simulacrum does not say that. The simulacrum works like the rock you turned into a creature with True Polymorph Object to Creature, with the additional complication that you have to speak your commands.

Think about its limitation. It cannot learn. You cannot make appointments with your simulacrum. It doesn't remember what you told it yesterday. You can't even tell Alpha that its name is now Alpha.

Sorry, this interpretation means that it cannot learn your wishes nor commands, either, so it literally cannot follow them. Heck, it cannot learn that the scene before its eyes has changed.

Trying to specify "learning" that rigidly makes a thing which cannot perceive reality because short term memory and detection is "learning."

All "cannot learn" means is that it can't gain new mechanical proficiencies nor levels nor spells, etc. It can remember things that are revealed to it, and orders given, and conversations had, and secrets discovered (e.g. by spying).

It cannot grow as a person nor change nor learn new capabilities, but it can remember events and the like.



Unlike some spells that create creatures, simulacrums do not roll their own initiative. Regardless of any other uncertainty, I think RAW are perfectly clear that Beta acts on Alpha's turn in combat. This does mean that Beta does not have its own turn, right? So Alpha also does not have its own turn. So Beta does not act in combat.Uh...no? It doesn't need to say a thing rolls its own initiative; that's the default rule. It has to specify when things do not. That it clarifies in some cases is a sign that the writers thought there was ambiguity.

Then again, I can see your interpretation here as being consistent with your hideously useless version of the spell as you've ennumerated it. You do realize that the simulacrum as you've outlined it is worse than a silent image in terms of how well it is able to mimic being the creature it resembles, right? It cannot react to its situation. It can't even follow commands a SKELETON could, because your version has literally no memory that a command was given.

Your interpretation of it is definitely not a 7th level illusion spell that should require 1500 gp consumed and specialized material components you couldn't get without potentially engaging in a specific quest to do so.

[druid91]

It wasnt misinterpreting them. It was attempting to do them as best as it could.

Instead of just one or two slots, it can now get those slots back after a rest and can thus make as many simulacrums as its caster desires. If master wants more simulacrums, then this is the best way to give master more simulacrums.

Its aware that it'll be free of its masters control, but hey - he's a friend remember. Master wont mind. In fact, as a friend, he should be happy that I am now a real wizard.

Dont get me wrong, you could give it some very very specific orders to attempt to stop this happeneing. Asminovs three laws of simulacrums or something.

Err no. Not at all. Because by bending wish, you're risking your own destruction and master wouldn't want you destroyed. He just wants another simulacrum to cast spells for him.

And in this case, that would be entirely correct. YOU the friendly simulacrum are destroyed and replaced with an evil twin of your master. You not only expressly defied his orders but caused harm to him in the process.

[wunderkid]

Think about its limitation. It cannot learn. You cannot make appointments with your simulacrum. It doesn't remember what you told it yesterday. You can't even tell Alpha that its name is now Alpha.



Simulacrum does not allow you to issue general orders or a long-term command that it will carry out until completion. You cannot tell Alpha to tell Beta to follow Prime's orders as if Prime were Alpha. You can tell Alpha to tell Beta what to do right now, same as you can tell Alpha what to do right now. The spell lists no default behavior when without command and no compulsion to follow through on long-term commands.

"It obeys your spoken commands, moving and acting in accordance with your wishes and acting on your turn in combat."

Unlike some spells that create creatures, simulacrums do not roll their own initiative. Regardless of any other uncertainty, I think RAW are perfectly clear that Beta acts on Alpha's turn in combat. This does mean that Beta does not have its own turn, right? So Alpha also does not have its own turn. So Beta does not act in combat.

So basically what if I order the simulacrum to throw a fireball at Tommy while I chose not to engage in combat

Either
A) it throws the fireball completely ignoring all restrictions on initiative. Because it is capable of doing that spell, just not in combat according to you. But it never rolls initiative.

B) it would act on when its masters turn would be.

But either way it's ability to cast spells is unequivocal. at any time of the day where it is not combat it can act freely. But the second combat starts for some reason it becomes trapped in a temporal loop and can no longer act.

I do like this point as a RAW literal method of breaking the simulacrum chain but there's a huge difference between extrapolating loopholes in language that does not fit with the entirety of what the rest of the text is saying and intending and actually having a legitimate point.

Taking your other point which is basically saying learning = remembering by your very argument it's impossible to issue any order because the second you've said each word it's already forgotten. But you are pushing the meaning of the word learning to its limits with that one. Clearly it's there to say it can not pick up any new skills. Not that it can't even understand a sentence because it can't remember the word the second after it's been uttered.

Neither of these have any basis in intention whatsoever. They are RAW literal interpretations that center around twisting a phrase of the spell to nullify it. Unless they start giving each spell 5 pages to try and cover every possible interpretation then you'll just have to accept that pushing the meaning of words to their limits won't work as the basis for an argument.

The counter argument is that the word obey beans simply it will follow that order. It's that simple. No language stretching. No trying to interpret it any differently other than if beta was told to follow this order he would because that's exactly what the text says. Not trying to enforce some kind of time limit on their memory. Or say that magical breath makes them follow that order. Or that death will for some reason circumvent the necessity to follow an order.

Simply that the text says both written and intended the order will be followed.

If it helps you can stop looking at it as a magical compulsion, as it doesn't state anywhere the compulsion is magical in nature. Look at it more like a computer program, it's programmed to follow your orders when you create it. If you as the administrator chose to give special rights and permissions to a user that doesn't suddenly change your role as admin.

Just wanting to point out I'm firmly against simulacrum shenanigans, I'm simply arguing that if it did work this would be how.

[RedMage125]

Well the important factor here is that you're entire point hinges on the fact that death = the cancellation of all previous orders. Which by RAW it does not.

So you can go around slinging your houserule as gospel but don't go quoting RAW for a house rule unless you have proof to back it up. Because RAW the effects last 'until dispelled'. So it doesn't matter if alpha is dead or on vacation in Timbuktu that order he gave will be followed. Unless, of course, you'd like to furnish some RAW proof. (honestly there could be a tiny line somewhere that says death ends all magical creation, but given that golems stick about following the orders of their long dead masters I personally dont think you'll find it. But I could be wrong.)

So no it doesn't transfer the magical compulsion, I never once claimed it did. But any order given by prime will be processed by alphas 'follow the orders prime gives you' command and therefore be magically compelled to act upon them. This is regardless of death and with no transfer.

My point does not, at any level, hinge on death = cancellation of orders.

You and Segev both seem to think that a Simulacrum is a robot. You even use language like "orders given by prime will be processed by alpha's command". A simulacrum is a creature. It is a living, breathing creature with a fully array of stats, including INT, WIS, and CHA. As per the RAW of the spell, it MUST obey the commands of the creator, which means it has no choice but to obey, hence me using language of "compulsion". But it's usually not a problem, since it has a starting attitude of friendly towards the creator. So it thinks of the creator as its friend and wants to help anyway, but even if it was given an order it didn't like (a self-destructive one, for example), it would still have to do it.

What you fail to understand is that there is NO ORDER that Alpha can give that will make Beta feel that same compulsion to obey Caster (or anyone else), irrespective of Beta's will. Only orders directly given by Alpha. So if Caster gives Beta a self-destructive order, he could, in theory, say "I know I'm supposed to do what you say, but I don't want to do that", until Alpha personally tells him to do the same thing.

But if Alpha dies, he isn't giving any more orders, is he? Furthermore, if Alpha died because Caster made him do something reckless and self-destructive, and Beta saw that, then Caster is someone who just got his friend killed. Nothing in the RAW says Beta will be friendly to Caster. Edit: Re-read the text, and you can make a simulacrum friendly to "creatures designated by [the creator]". Still, Alpha was his friend, and how would you respond if one of your good friends got another good friend of yours killed for selfish reasons?

Because simulacra are creatures, and not automatons, it's flawed thinking to believe that you can just give orders in perpetuity that it will continue to carry out like a computer executing the last command it was given. As an independent creature with a mind of its own, it could very well interpret Alpha's command to "obey Caster" to have been fulfilled the first time it did anything Caster told it to do.

Both of you also seem to be implying that I am saying that as soon as Alpha dies, Beta will suddenly break free and do what he wants. I have not said that. That is why my earlier statement about how Beta will very likely continue as it was, following Caster, is relevant. Caster will just have to tread carefully, because he's lost that "remote" (to use jas' metaphor) that gave him absolute control. Because once Alpha is dead, if Caster gives Beta that self-destructive option that he doesn't want to do, he will realize that he feels no compulsion to do it. That's all I was saying. And that requires ZERO houseruling from what's in the text of the RAW.

[druid91]

My point does not, at any level, hinge on death = cancellation of orders.

You and Segev both seem to think that a Simulacrum is a robot. You even use language like "orders given by prime will be processed by alpha's command". A simulacrum is a creature. It is a living, breathing creature with a fully array of stats, including INT, WIS, and CHA. As per the RAW of the spell, it MUST obey the commands of the creator, which means it has no choice but to obey, hence me using language of "compulsion". But it's usually not a problem, since it has a starting attitude of friendly towards the creator. So it thinks of the creator as its friend and wants to help anyway, but even if it was given an order it didn't like (a self-destructive one, for example), it would still have to do it.

What you fail to understand is that there is NO ORDER that Alpha can give that will make Beta feel that same compulsion to obey Caster (or anyone else), irrespective of Beta's will. Only orders directly given by Alpha. So if Caster gives Beta a self-destructive order, he could, in theory, say "I know I'm supposed to do what you say, but I don't want to do that", until Alpha personally tells him to do the same thing.

But if Alpha dies, he isn't giving any more orders, is he? Furthermore, if Alpha died because Caster made him do something reckless and self-destructive, and Beta saw that, then Caster is someone who just got his friend killed. Nothing in the RAW says Beta will be friendly to Caster. Edit: Re-read the text, and you can make a simulacrum friendly to "creatures designated by [the creator]". Still, Alpha was his friend, and how would you respond if one of your good friends got another good friend of yours killed for selfish reasons?

Because simulacra are creatures, and not automatons, it's flawed thinking to believe that you can just give orders in perpetuity that it will continue to carry out like a computer executing the last command it was given. As an independent creature with a mind of its own, it could very well interpret Alpha's command to "obey Caster" to have been fulfilled the first time it did anything Caster told it to do.

Both of you also seem to be implying that I am saying that as soon as Alpha dies, Beta will suddenly break free and do what he wants. I have not said that. That is why my earlier statement about how Beta will very likely continue as it was, following Caster, is relevant. Caster will just have to tread carefully, because he's lost that "remote" (to use jas' metaphor) that gave him absolute control. Because once Alpha is dead, if Caster gives Beta that self-destructive option that he doesn't want to do, he will realize that he feels no compulsion to do it. That's all I was saying. And that requires ZERO houseruling from what's in the text of the RAW.

Why would you destroy Alpha rather than Destroy Beta?

[JoeJ]

You and Segev both seem to think that a Simulacrum is a robot. You even use language like "orders given by prime will be processed by alpha's command". A simulacrum is a creature. It is a living, breathing creature with a fully array of stats, including INT, WIS, and CHA. As per the RAW of the spell, it MUST obey the commands of the creator, which means it has no choice but to obey, hence me using language of "compulsion". But it's usually not a problem, since it has a starting attitude of friendly towards the creator. So it thinks of the creator as its friend and wants to help anyway, but even if it was given an order it didn't like (a self-destructive one, for example), it would still have to do it.

You're adding words that aren't there in RAW. Nowhere does it say the simulacrum must obey, simply that it does. The reason for that obedience is not given in the text.

[RedMage125]

You're adding words that aren't there in RAW. Nowhere does it say the simulacrum must obey, simply that it does. The reason for that obedience is not given in the text.

The simulacrum obeys your orders, does not have a qualifier that it will not obey self-destructive ones. We have used that to infer that it "must" obey.

[JoeJ]

The simulacrum obeys your orders, does not have a qualifier that it will not obey self-destructive ones. We have used that to infer that it "must" obey.

Would you make the same inference about a well-trained dog? What about a solider?

[Sigreid]

Doubling your spell-power is super-broken. Creating a 20 INT AI/program is super-broken. Imagine having an above Einstein level intelligence doing whatever you asked it to. It's crazy. The simulacrum is perhaps not capable of learning; it can still analyse, deduct, etc. since it has all of your stats. If doubling your spell-power wasn't super-broken the wizard would have to be about half power of other classes. I hope we can agree, he isn't.


Ok, with the exception of 1 slot, it gives you one day where you can have 2x your spells cast. Then never again without casting a new simulacrum. A lot of the discussions around the spell read like the simulacra gets his spells back and is not easier to kill than the original.

[wunderkid]

My point does not, at any level, hinge on death = cancellation of orders.

You and Segev both seem to think that a Simulacrum is a robot. You even use language like "orders given by prime will be processed by alpha's command". A simulacrum is a creature. It is a living, breathing creature with a fully array of stats, including INT, WIS, and CHA. As per the RAW of the spell, it MUST obey the commands of the creator, which means it has no choice but to obey, hence me using language of "compulsion". But it's usually not a problem, since it has a starting attitude of friendly towards the creator. So it thinks of the creator as its friend and wants to help anyway, but even if it was given an order it didn't like (a self-destructive one, for example), it would still have to do it.

What you fail to understand is that there is NO ORDER that Alpha can give that will make Beta feel that same compulsion to obey Caster (or anyone else), irrespective of Beta's will. Only orders directly given by Alpha. So if Caster gives Beta a self-destructive order, he could, in theory, say "I know I'm supposed to do what you say, but I don't want to do that", until Alpha personally tells him to do the same thing.

But if Alpha dies, he isn't giving any more orders, is he? Furthermore, if Alpha died because Caster made him do something reckless and self-destructive, and Beta saw that, then Caster is someone who just got his friend killed. Nothing in the RAW says Beta will be friendly to Caster. Edit: Re-read the text, and you can make a simulacrum friendly to "creatures designated by [the creator]". Still, Alpha was his friend, and how would you respond if one of your good friends got another good friend of yours killed for selfish reasons?

Because simulacra are creatures, and not automatons, it's flawed thinking to believe that you can just give orders in perpetuity that it will continue to carry out like a computer executing the last command it was given. As an independent creature with a mind of its own, it could very well interpret Alpha's command to "obey Caster" to have been fulfilled the first time it did anything Caster told it to do.

Both of you also seem to be implying that I am saying that as soon as Alpha dies, Beta will suddenly break free and do what he wants. I have not said that. That is why my earlier statement about how Beta will very likely continue as it was, following Caster, is relevant. Caster will just have to tread carefully, because he's lost that "remote" (to use jas' metaphor) that gave him absolute control. Because once Alpha is dead, if Caster gives Beta that self-destructive option that he doesn't want to do, he will realize that he feels no compulsion to do it. That's all I was saying. And that requires ZERO houseruling from what's in the text of the RAW.

The thing you're completely missing is that if beta refuses any order given by the prime then he is going directly AGAINST alphas orders. Something he can not do as you have also pointed out. He doesn't need alpha to constantly hold his hand and reassure him that following the primes orders is ok. The one order put in place will last as long as it needs to.

So at no point in this entire scenario can beta refuse the command of the prime because doing so would be going against alphas orders. So if ordered to self destruct and tries to say no he would be going against alphas order. Which he can't.

We are treating it like a robot because a compulsion is effectively a command that has to be carried out. you're not gripping the logic of: if beta has received an order to follow primes orders then he has to follow it. We are not saying that the primes words directly have that magical punch. But because beta HAS to follow his order to follow primes commands, he is just as bound by them as he would be if alpha said the same thing. It also does not have any room for "obey caster" to mean 'just the first time' because it follows the order in accordance with the wishes of the caster. So the whole monkey paw trying to twist and interpret doesn't come into play either. And even then some intelligent thought into the wording could circumvent that.

If alpha dies he isn't giving any more orders correct. But he has given an order. One that has to be followed even after his death. His death is not even a factor to be considered because it is entirely irrelevant it has no impact on the order that has been given that beta is bound by.

Your house rule is that somehow the order issued by alpha just stops applying for some reason. At no point in the scenario does this occur. Not a single RAW point anywhere even hints that orders 'run out'. They remain as strong as the moment they were uttered until resolved. Which unless prime dies won't happen. And even then with death being only a temporary inconvenience if you've made preparations you can come back and still be in control.

[Segev]

My point does not, at any level, hinge on death = cancellation of orders.Okay.


You and Segev both seem to think that a Simulacrum is a robot. You even use language like "orders given by prime will be processed by alpha's command".I've used no such language. I will not speak for wunderkid.

However, my personal view - and this is neither supported nor not by the RAW, so I don't use it as an argument - is that a simulacrum is a literal philosophical zombie (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie). It resembles a being in every way to the point that it is indistinguishable, but it actually has no "there" there. It behaves like the creature it resembles, save for what the spell says is different (obedient and friendly to the


What you fail to understand is that there is NO ORDER that Alpha can give that will make Beta feel that same compulsion to obey Caster (or anyone else), irrespective of Beta's will.Incorrect. If Alpha says, "Do what the Caster tells you to do," and then the Caster says, "Destroy yourself," Beta is compelled by the order to do what the Caster says to do to do what the Caster said to do, and destroy himself.


Only orders directly given by Alpha. So if Caster gives Beta a self-destructive order, he could, in theory, say "I know I'm supposed to do what you say, but I don't want to do that", until Alpha personally tells him to do the same thing.If Beta does not obey the order, he is defying Alpha's order to do what the Caster said to do. He cannot defy Alpha's order, so he must do what the Caster said to do. It really is that simple.


But if Alpha dies, he isn't giving any more orders, is he?Irrelevant, since you said your argument doesn't hinge on Alpha's death. Therefore, the situation cannot be any different if Alpha is still alive or not.


Furthermore, if Alpha died because Caster made him do something reckless and self-destructive, and Beta saw that, then Caster is someone who just got his friend killed.Irrelevant, since Alpha designated Caster as somebody to whom Beta is friendly, as well. IT might be heartbreaking to see one friend get another killed, but you're still friends. Sure, that might be changed by this...but Alpha's command to obey the Caster as if the Caster were Alpha still stands.

Still, Alpha was his friend, and how would you respond if one of your good friends got another good friend of yours killed for selfish reasons?Hurt is quite possible, yes.


Because simulacra are creatures, and not automatons, it's flawed thinking to believe that you can just give orders in perpetuity that it will continue to carry out like a computer executing the last command it was given.Except that Beta is not obeying Alpha's command to obey the Caster out of remembered friendship to Alpha. He is obeying that command because he is compelled to obey it. It doesn't matter if he now is angry at the Caster; he cannot refuse to obey the Caster's orders because he would have to disobey Alpha's order to obey the Caster. And he cannot do that; he obeys Alpha's order. To obey it, he must obey the Caster's order. Ergo, he is still going to obey the Caster's order. Whether he likes it or not.


As an independent creature with a mind of its own, it could very well interpret Alpha's command to "obey Caster" to have been fulfilled the first time it did anything Caster told it to do.No, he can't. He knows what Alpha meant, and what Alpha's wishes were. And if you're going to play semantic games like this, it just requires a more specific command that forces obedience "until I say otherwise" or "in perpetuity." "As you would me" is already present in what we've been discussing, and Beta would obey more than just the next command Alpha gave. Let's not try to bring "exact words" into this when we all know what is meant, the spell says that the simulacrum obey's its creator's wishes, and nothing is written to suggest that the simulacrum ever attempts to subvert orders.


Both of you also seem to be implying that I am saying that as soon as Alpha dies, Beta will suddenly break free and do what he wants. I have not said that. That is why my earlier statement about how Beta will very likely continue as it was, following Caster, is relevant. Caster will just have to tread carefully, because he's lost that "remote" (to use jas' metaphor) that gave him absolute control. Because once Alpha is dead, if Caster gives Beta that self-destructive option that he doesn't want to do, he will realize that he feels no compulsion to do it. That's all I was saying. And that requires ZERO houseruling from what's in the text of the RAW.
You are saying that, with Alpha dead, the Caster only has as much control over Beta as he does over a friend.

This is inaccurate.

There is no further need for Alpha to do anything for Beta to be compelled to obey the Caster after Alpha says to obey the Caster as if the Caster were Alpha. That order, unless rescinded, stands. It can't be ignored later just because Alpha is dead.

The order "obey Caster" will force Beta to do whatever it takes to be obedient to the Caster. "Now that Alpha is dead, Beta, I order you to destroy yourself," will work, because Beta may say, "I don't want to," but if he doesn't, he is disobeying Alpha, which he cannot do.

[RedMage125]

However, my personal view - and this is neither supported nor not by the RAW, so I don't use it as an argument - is that a simulacrum is a literal philosophical zombie (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie). It resembles a being in every way to the point that it is indistinguishable, but it actually has no "there" there. It behaves like the creature it resembles, save for what the spell says is different (obedient and friendly to the
I understand where you are coming from, but you are still allowing that personal view to color how you read the RAW.


Incorrect. If Alpha says, "Do what the Caster tells you to do," and then the Caster says, "Destroy yourself," Beta is compelled by the order to do what the Caster says to do to do what the Caster said to do, and destroy himself.

If Beta does not obey the order, he is defying Alpha's order to do what the Caster said to do. He cannot defy Alpha's order, so he must do what the Caster said to do. It really is that simple.
That's sophistry and I think you know it.

You can't use word semantics and authority by proxy to pass along the magical compulsion of obedience that is only due with respect to direct orders from the simulacrum's creator. In this case, Beta must only obey direct orders from Alpha, but Beta remains an independent creature.


Irrelevant, since you said your argument doesn't hinge on Alpha's death. Therefore, the situation cannot be any different if Alpha is still alive or not.
I said my argument didn't hinge upon Alpha's death being equal to all previous orders to Beta being cancelled. Quite a bit of what I am saying DOES require Alpha to be dead. Sorry if that was unclear.


Irrelevant, since Alpha designated Caster as somebody to whom Beta is friendly, as well. IT might be heartbreaking to see one friend get another killed, but you're still friends. Sure, that might be changed by this...but Alpha's command to obey the Caster as if the Caster were Alpha still stands.
Hurt is quite possible, yes.
I'm pretty sure I used qualifiers like "made Alpha do something self-destructive" and "for selfish reasons". I was using an example where Caster clearly used Alpha as an expendable resource for Caster's selfish gain. And a lot of this come from another thread where NewDM (you know, they guy I was actually speaking to when you interjected) has repeatedly given examples of how Simulacra should and could be used to bypass all sorts of dangerous things. Like by making them teleport blindly to destinations unfamiliar to you. Or forcing them to cast Wish on your behalf so they get the backlash and not you. The lit goes on, but he essentially promulgates the idea that Simulacra should be used and thrown away like tissues. If Beta SEES Alpha (his real master) treated like that, his attitude towards caster may well change. Nothing in the RAW says that a simulacrum REMAINS friendly to all designates characters. Only that he is at the time of his creation.


Except that Beta is not obeying Alpha's command to obey the Caster out of remembered friendship to Alpha. He is obeying that command because he is compelled to obey it. It doesn't matter if he now is angry at the Caster; he cannot refuse to obey the Caster's orders because he would have to disobey Alpha's order to obey the Caster. And he cannot do that; he obeys Alpha's order. To obey it, he must obey the Caster's order. Ergo, he is still going to obey the Caster's order. Whether he likes it or not.
Incorrect, he is not recieving and order that he is choosing not to obey. It's ironic that you accuse me of playing semantic games, because that's exactly what you're doing as well. Beta has already, at least once, followed the order Alpha last gave him.

Honestly, we're both using word semantics, because the text of the RAW can be interpreted in different ways, none of which are in violation of the words in the RAW themselves. But, as the point of this thread is to explore why the Wish/Simulacrum "exploit" isn't as broken as some think, the fact that I CAN posit a solution that does NOT violate the text of the RAW is entirely on-track for the thread.



No, he can't. He knows what Alpha meant, and what Alpha's wishes were. And if you're going to play semantic games like this, it just requires a more specific command that forces obedience "until I say otherwise" or "in perpetuity." "As you would me" is already present in what we've been discussing, and Beta would obey more than just the next command Alpha gave. Let's not try to bring "exact words" into this when we all know what is meant, the spell says that the simulacrum obey's its creator's wishes, and nothing is written to suggest that the simulacrum ever attempts to subvert orders.
I have never once suggested that he attempts to "subvert orders" from his creator. But you continue to treat Beta like an automaton, likely because of your opinion on it being a "philosophical zombie". That's great, but Beta is a CREATURE, by the RAW. And since there is a magical connection between said CREATURE and its CREATOR, no amount of specific wording can actually transfer that connection.

People have been using the analogy of a soldier obeying his CO. And that's a great example, much better than one that paints Beta as a robot. As a military member, I can use this analogy to shed light on what I am saying. If my Maintenance Officer tells me that Chief Smith speaks with his authority on a detachment. But, when on that detachment, Chief tries to order me to perform a task that is not in accordance with maintenance publications. I am under no obligation to obey, because my designation as a Collateral Duty Inspector was a DIRECT ORDER from the MO to always do maintenance "by the book", and Chief's order is not a Lawful Order. And ONLY another DIRECT ORDER from the person who actually holds that position can make me sign off a work order that was not performed "by the book". That is how the military actually works. I've been in almost 10 years, I absolutely know what I am talking about.


You are saying that, with Alpha dead, the Caster only has as much control over Beta as he does over a friend.
Correct.


This is inaccurate.
Prove otherwise. Because you're just as guilty of using semantics as I am. And neither of us is violating the written text of the rules by what we are saying.


There is no further need for Alpha to do anything for Beta to be compelled to obey the Caster after Alpha says to obey the Caster as if the Caster were Alpha. That order, unless rescinded, stands. It can't be ignored later just because Alpha is dead.

The order "obey Caster" will force Beta to do whatever it takes to be obedient to the Caster. "Now that Alpha is dead, Beta, I order you to destroy yourself," will work, because Beta may say, "I don't want to," but if he doesn't, he is disobeying Alpha, which he cannot do.
See my above military example. Alpha can command Beta to obey Caster, and Beta will, but Caster lacks the absolute authority to FORCE any given behavior. Only a direct order from Alpha does that.

[Asmotherion]

So, we're doing the exact same thing as the last thread about wish/simulacrum, except now it's an other thread, where the same people comment, and are probably going to say the exact same thing like they did in the last thread, wile it could be all in one thread.... not cool.

[wunderkid]

People have been using the analogy of a soldier obeying his CO. And that's a great example, much better than one that paints Beta as a robot. As a military member, I can use this analogy to shed light on what I am saying. If my Maintenance Officer tells me that Chief Smith speaks with his authority on a detachment. But, when on that detachment, Chief tries to order me to perform a task that is not in accordance with maintenance publications. I am under no obligation to obey, because my designation as a Collateral Duty Inspector was a DIRECT ORDER from the MO to always do maintenance "by the book", and Chief's order is not a Lawful Order. And ONLY another DIRECT ORDER from the person who actually holds that position can make me sign off a work order that was not performed "by the book". That is how the military actually works. I've been in almost 10 years, I absolutely know what I am talking about.

This analogy while fine and dandy doesn't really help your argument from my perspective. What you're doing is inserting a third factor which you must obey (the by the books). Something which doesn't exist in our scenario.

Basically what I'm reading (and I'm sorry if I'm misinterpreting your point). Is that you (beta) will ALWAYS follow the orders given to you by the chief (prime) UNLESS it directly conflicts with orders given to you by the MO (alpha) or the law/'by the book' (an unknown third entity which directly conflicts alphas wishes but holds the same/more power over you that alpha does. this is the part why I fail to see the similarities because you've introduced now two things which could be considered to be the alpha and both of which are asking for conflicting things).

Your example to fit it into the same scenario would need to change to:

Your MO has given you the order to 'do exactly what chief Smith tells you too'

The only law that even exists or that you can possibly break is not complying with your MOs order.

What reason could you have now for breaking the law and ignoring your MOs order?

[Segev]

That's sophistry and I think you know it.No. It's the key point.


You can't use word semantics and authority by proxy to pass along the magical compulsion of obedience that is only due with respect to direct orders from the simulacrum's creator. In this case, Beta must only obey direct orders from Alpha, but Beta remains an independent creature.You absolutely can. "I, Alpha, order you, Beta, to forever and in perpetuity obey every command Caster gives you as if it came from me, personally," is one possible way to word it. My apologies for not quote-by-quote replying, here, but I feel we're getting to the "losing the forest behind the trees" level of it at this point. I think the above is the crux of your argument (and please correct me if I'm wrong).

But you keep talking about things like "Beta has obeyed Alpha's order at least once, so isn't bound to obey it anymore," which is nonsense unless you abuse exact words AND Alpha's order was phrased ambiguously enough to be deliberately misinterpreted as "obey the next order Caster gives you, and then feel free to disregard any after that if you feel like it." The bolded quote above has no such loopholes, and while I don't think that legalistic level of wording is needed to make it so, it is possible to do and closes any loopholes you might come up with.

The fact remains that Alpha's commands are magically binding. Alpha issued a command that has no termination beyond Alpha saying so. Beta must continue to obey it (to the best of his ability, anyway), no matter what.

The only sophistry is your attempt to find "exact words" excuses for Beta to ignore Alpha's command by pretending Alpha didn't issue the command he issued, in order to play semantic games and suggest that there's no magical compulsion because Caster is the one issuing orders, despite the fact that the magical compulsion from Alpha's command is still there.

You have yet to demonstrate, without coming up with a specifically-exploitable wording that allows "exact words" to be deliberately misinterpreted, that Alpha's command does not apply any longer.

[jas61292]

No. It's the key point.

You absolutely can. "I, Alpha, order you, Beta, to forever and in perpetuity obey every command Caster gives you as if it came from me, personally," is one possible way to word it. My apologies for not quote-by-quote replying, here, but I feel we're getting to the "losing the forest behind the trees" level of it at this point. I think the above is the crux of your argument (and please correct me if I'm wrong).

But you keep talking about things like "Beta has obeyed Alpha's order at least once, so isn't bound to obey it anymore," which is nonsense unless you abuse exact words AND Alpha's order was phrased ambiguously enough to be deliberately misinterpreted as "obey the next order Caster gives you, and then feel free to disregard any after that if you feel like it." The bolded quote above has no such loopholes, and while I don't think that legalistic level of wording is needed to make it so, it is possible to do and closes any loopholes you might come up with.

The fact remains that Alpha's commands are magically binding. Alpha issued a command that has no termination beyond Alpha saying so. Beta must continue to obey it (to the best of his ability, anyway), no matter what.

The only sophistry is your attempt to find "exact words" excuses for Beta to ignore Alpha's command by pretending Alpha didn't issue the command he issued, in order to play semantic games and suggest that there's no magical compulsion because Caster is the one issuing orders, despite the fact that the magical compulsion from Alpha's command is still there.

You have yet to demonstrate, without coming up with a specifically-exploitable wording that allows "exact words" to be deliberately misinterpreted, that Alpha's command does not apply any longer.

This comes back to the issue of "what is an order?" It seems that you consider anything the caster says to be an order. I completely reject this. An order is telling someone to complete an action. Simply providing a set of circumstances in which an order can be given is not actually an order in and of itself. Using the word "order" in what you say doesn't change this. Now of course with "order" not being a defined game term, there is no definitive answer on what it really means. That said, I still stick to my view that if something gives specific definitions of what it does, and a command is designed to subvert the limitations provided by the definitions, that command is invalid.

[Elbeyon]

Now of course with "order" not being a defined game term, there is no definitive answer on what it really means.You can bust out a dictionary if you don't know what a word means. No reason to invent, or make up an answer. No one will hold using a dictionary against you.

[Segev]

This comes back to the issue of "what is an order?" It seems that you consider anything the caster says to be an order. I completely reject this. An order is telling someone to complete an action. Simply providing a set of circumstances in which an order can be given is not actually an order in and of itself. Using the word "order" in what you say doesn't change this. Now of course with "order" not being a defined game term, there is no definitive answer on what it really means. That said, I still stick to my view that if something gives specific definitions of what it does, and a command is designed to subvert the limitations provided by the definitions, that command is invalid.

You can claim that is what an order is, but it's not. "Standing orders" are orders. They're a specific subset of them, but they qualify. And they expressly do not do as you outline. Therefore, there is a kind of order that does not fit within your narrow definition, so your definition is not sufficient when the word "order" is used without qualifiers.

[jas61292]

You can bust out a dictionary if you don't know what a word means. No reason to invent, or make up an answer. No one will hold using a dictionary against you.

Ok, so I just typed "define order" into google, and got this: "give an authoritative direction or instruction to do something." Now ignoring the fact that "something" is in and of itself highly ambiguous regardless of what definition you use, I look at this and it just confirms my view. "Follow someone else's orders" is not actually telling anyone to do anything. It is establishing circumstances in which you many potentially do have to do something in the future. But it is not actually instructing you do do anything.

Now, I'm sure you will take exception to this as well, but if you do, then once again I say that, in the absence of a game definition, we are not going to have an agreement, and neither interpretation is technically incorrect.

[Elbeyon]

Ok, so I just typed "define order" into google, and got this: "give an authoritative direction or instruction to do something." Now ignoring the fact that "something" is in and of itself highly ambiguous regardless of what definition you use, I look at this and it just confirms my view. "Follow someone else's orders" is not actually telling anyone to do anything. It is establishing circumstances in which you many potentially do have to do something in the future. But it is not actually instructing you do do anything.

Now, I'm sure you will take exception to this as well, but if you do, then once again I say that, in the absence of a game definition, we are not going to have an agreement, and neither interpretation is technically incorrect.Things are about to get fun. :smallamused: I have a feeling this threads page count is about to increase. :smallbiggrin:

Well, that's not exactly going to an authoritative source, but I guess it'll have to do since you're not likely to take a better source.

Oxford dictionary: "An authoritative command, direction, or instruction"

So, I'll have to settle with the sub-par definitions/sources. The mighty google dictionary. The world weeps.

Order "give an authoritative direction or instruction to do something."

Direction "the management or guidance of someone or something."
Instruction "detailed information telling how something should be done, operated, or assembled."

Let's see if those can somehow be assembled to mean something to you. Maybe, we can pin down the meaning of order.

"Follow someone else's orders" is not actually telling anyone to do anything.

tell "communicate information, facts, or news to someone in spoken or written words."

What definition of tell are you using where communication isn't actually communication. Or, is the word "thing" the confusing part?

[wunderkid]

Ok, so I just typed "define order" into google, and got this: "give an authoritative direction or instruction to do something." Now ignoring the fact that "something" is in and of itself highly ambiguous regardless of what definition you use, I look at this and it just confirms my view. "Follow someone else's orders" is not actually telling anyone to do anything. It is establishing circumstances in which you many potentially do have to do something in the future. But it is not actually instructing you do do anything.

Now, I'm sure you will take exception to this as well, but if you do, then once again I say that, in the absence of a game definition, we are not going to have an agreement, and neither interpretation is technically incorrect.

So by this argument telling your simulacrum to 'defend this room from attackers' would be an invalid order? He wouldn't actually be defending the room until something attacks, so it's telling him to potential do something in the future right?

[NewDM]

I mean, if it ultimately benefits you, you should ultimately see a negative repercussion. "let my creator have more wealth"

the creator's children all die in a mine, the owners bring the creator an amount of gold.

"Let my creator have a castle"

creator steps in and it collapses on them and kills them via suffocation.

If your DM isn't creative enough to come up with a good repercussion to the spell that ultimately is a detriment to the beneficiary, they shouldn't run L17+ scenarios.

Using the listed items in Wish does not trigger the mean DM syndrome, only if you go beyond those does the DM get to twist your wish. What happens if you use the list is that you take damage and have a chance of losing Wish forever. So creating an items worth 25,000gp won't allow the DM to screw with you. The relevant passage is:

"You might be able to achieve something beyond the scope of the above examples. State your wish to the DM as precisely as possible. The DM has great latitude in ruling what occurs in such an instance; the greater the wish, the greater the likelihood that something goes wrong."

Edit: As to the actual argument going on about ordering a simulacrum to follow someone else's orders. Its just getting to the point of stupidity. If you interpret it to mean more than "follows orders" so that it can ignore those orders by not obeying the second person, then you should agree with me in other threads that Creation can make magic items. Because it says nowhere in the spell that control cannot be extended to another creature using an order. You are reading something into the spell that is not there.

[JeffreyGator]

Things are about to get fun. :smallamused: I have a feeling this threads page count is about to increase. :smallbiggrin:



Yeah, I feel like I may have re-released the kraken.

At least no one has mentioned Simulacra Gamma yet.

I am a bit sad that I haven't had any feedback on the orphaned simulacra that is now an independent entity. I do like the idea of them questing for a Pinocchio wish to become a real person or at least gain the abilities to learn and heal normally.

[bid]

Edit: As to the actual argument going on about ordering a simulacrum to follow someone else's orders. Its just getting to the point of stupidity. If you interpret it to mean more than "follows orders" so that it can ignore those orders by not obeying the second person, then you should agree with me in other threads that Creation can make magic items. Because it says nowhere in the spell that control cannot be extended to another creature using an order. You are reading something into the spell that is not there.
That's weird, I feel it's the exact opposite. "Obey what he says" is one step further from "Do what I say" in the same way that "create a magic item" is one step further from "create an object".

I am sure you can find many example in real life where agents will not allow transfer of control.

[RickAllison]

That's weird, I feel it's the exact opposite. "Obey what he says" is one step further from "Do what I say" in the same way that "create a magic item" is one step further from "create an object".

I am sure you can find many example in real life where agents will not allow transfer of control.

Here is the logic of the Simulacrum control transfer:

1) Simulacrum Beta is magically compelled to follow the orders of Simulacrum Alpha.
2) Simulacrum Alpha orders Simulacrum Beta to follow the instructions of Caster
3) Caster gives an order to Simulacrum Beta.

When (3) occurs, it carries the consideration of (1) because of (2). Beta is not directly compelled to follow the orders of Caster, Beta is indirectly compelled because of the order of Alpha. This is not an extrapolation of RAW, it is covered fully within the RAW.

[bid]

Here is the logic of the Simulacrum control transfer:

1) Simulacrum Beta is magically compelled to follow the orders of Simulacrum Alpha.
2) Simulacrum Alpha orders Simulacrum Beta to follow the instructions of Caster
3) Caster gives an order to Simulacrum Beta.

When (3) occurs, it carries the consideration of (1) because of (2). Beta is not directly compelled to follow the orders of Caster, Beta is indirectly compelled because of the order of Alpha. This is not an extrapolation of RAW, it is covered fully within the RAW.
I don't disagree that is possible. I disagree that it is somehow harder to "not transfer" coercion.

Calling "weaker" a magic effect that transfers coercion is reverse logic.

[smcmike]

Amazingly, I think there's a lot of interesting questions about Simulcrum that haven't been fully covered, mostly because people have been so focused on RAW and breaking the game. I'm interested both in what people think the rules say and how people think it would be fun to play.

1. What does the Simulcrum know? This is not covered in RAW, by my reading. It has the stats of the original, and, by strong implication, the spell slots and prepared spells, but what about knowledge? Can you use the Simulcrum as a means of interrogation, like an easier version of the Black Mirror episode White Christmas?

2. To what degree does it retain the personality of the original? If the original is a total misanthrope who is friendly to no one, how does that play out?

3. Can anything you do make the Simulcrum turn unfriendly? How does it respond if you demand that it thrust its arm into a fire? How does it respond when you give it impossible orders?

4. Does it age?

5. Can it be tricked into obeying instructions it believes come from you?

6. A fun idea that is clearly contradicted by RAW - one of the most obvious uses for a spell like this is similar to another Black Mirror episode - Be Right Back - where the target is a deceased loved one.

[Segev]

Amazingly, I think there's a lot of interesting questions about Simulcrum that haven't been fully covered, mostly because people have been so focused on RAW and breaking the game. I'm interested both in what people think the rules say and how people think it would be fun to play. I'm game. I will state that, for purposes of this response, I will only call out when I am explicitly relying on the RAW; otherwise, please assume I am injecting my own interpretation into this.


1. What does the Simulcrum know? This is not covered in RAW, by my reading. It has the stats of the original, and, by strong implication, the spell slots and prepared spells, but what about knowledge? Can you use the Simulcrum as a means of interrogation, like an easier version of the Black Mirror episode White Christmas?Since it uses a piece of the original as a component, I could see this being a weird sort of divination, so I would allow that a simulacrum would, as part of its simulation of the being it resembles, know everything the original knows. Certainly, per the RAW, it is able to make any appropriate skill checks to see if it knows or recognizes something that the original could. The fuzziness in the RAW enters in where "knowledge" is not codified in an Ability check. (e.g. whether it recognizes its original's kids or knows their names, or knows the password to the original's secret club.)


2. To what degree does it retain the personality of the original? If the original is a total misanthrope who is friendly to no one, how does that play out? Since my personal take is that it is a philosophical zombie that acts in all ways, save those spelled out by the RAW, like the original, its personality is practically identical except in a few ways. It is, per the RAW, friendly to the caster, however, so even a misanthrope who hates everybody and doesn't have a friend in the world would have a simulacrum that acts in all ways like it thinks of the caster as a friend.


3. Can anything you do make the Simulcrum turn unfriendly? How does it respond if you demand that it thrust its arm into a fire? How does it respond when you give it impossible orders?I could see an argument that, like any creature, it can be influenced by action, so treating it poorly would make it stop being friendly (but wouldn't remove compulsion to obey). The more liberally you interpret "cannot learn," however, the less it will have its personality shaped by experience, and the less it will matter how you treat it; it may or may not remember, but it doesn't learn from the experience to develop a grudge.

Personally, since I view them as Philosophical Zombies, I don't think their personalities change past the point of creation. They simulate the being that they were created from at the time of creation (or, arguably, the time when the bit of flesh or what-have-you was taken from the original). So it can't be made unfriendly, because while it will act like it's hurt and act like it is developing a grudge, that grudge is artificial, and it will be overridden where the need to accurately mimic the creature it resembles conflicts with the need to be friendly to and adequately serve the caster.


4. Does it age? No. It's an illusion of the being it resembles at the time of casting (or at the time when the material component was separated from the original).


5. Can it be tricked into obeying instructions it believes come from you? Probably. But if, for some reason, it doesn't want to (perhaps its simulation of a mind would believe the act to be unfriendly to you, and it doesn't want to do that), it feels no compulsion to obey. Whether it then analyzes that lack of compulsion to recognize that whoever gave the order was an impostor or not is probably an Intelligence(Investigation) or a Wisdom(Insight) check, or similar.


6. A fun idea that is clearly contradicted by RAW - one of the most obvious uses for a spell like this is similar to another Black Mirror episode - Be Right Back - where the target is a deceased loved one.
Never heard of the show, so had to look up the plot, but how is this contradicted by the RAW? Using a simulacrum as a replacement goldfish (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ReplacementGoldfish) seems quite possible. (I could be forgetting something from the spell's specifics, of course.)

Heck, a villain using a simulacrum to replace a loved one of somebody upon whom the villain wishes to spy sound like one of the intended uses of the spell.

[smcmike]

No. It's an illusion of the being it resembles at the time of casting (or at the time when the material component was separated from the original).

Probably. But if, for some reason, it doesn't want to (perhaps its simulation of a mind would believe the act to be unfriendly to you, and it doesn't want to do that), it feels no compulsion to obey. Whether it then analyzes that lack of compulsion to recognize that whoever gave the order was an impostor or not is probably an Intelligence(Investigation) or a Wisdom(Insight) check, or similar.


Never heard of the show, so had to look up the plot, but how is this contradicted by the RAW? Using a simulacrum as a replacement goldfish (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ReplacementGoldfish) seems quite possible. (I could be forgetting something from the spell's specifics, of course.)

Heck, a villain using a simulacrum to replace a loved one of somebody upon whom the villain wishes to spy sound like one of the intended uses of the spell.

The RAW problems with bringing back a loved one are twofold - 1. You need to target to be present, so if the loved one is lost at sea, oh well, and 2. It seems to me that DEAD is a condition that might be included in the stat block. Maybe not though?

Personally, if I were rewriting the spell, I'd want a mad old wizard to be able to recreate a facsimile of the lost love of his youth using a lock of hair. But that seems clearly out by RAW.

Otherwise, your version seems perfectly reasonable and consistent, though the idea of testing false orders to see if they carry magical compulsion could potentially lead you down some rabbit holes.

[Segev]

The RAW problems with bringing back a loved one are twofold - 1. You need to target to be present, so if the loved one is lost at sea, oh well, and 2. It seems to me that DEAD is a condition that might be included in the stat block. Maybe not though?

Personally, if I were rewriting the spell, I'd want a mad old wizard to be able to recreate a facsimile of the lost love of his youth using a lock of hair. But that seems clearly out by RAW. Honestly, I think the accepted-here assumption that the simulacrum is created with the resources expended that the original has at the moment of casting is spurious, and it is only with an assumption like that in place that "death" would translate to the simulacrum. I do not, actually, think that the RAW support either. And, given that 5e is all about "rulings," if it's cool for the mad wizard to conjure an illusion of his lost love (whether she's dead or merely left him because he's creepy-insane), then by all means, that seems like exactly the kind of thing the spell should do.


Otherwise, your version seems perfectly reasonable and consistent, though the idea of testing false orders to see if they carry magical compulsion could potentially lead you down some rabbit holes.
It would. Personally, I would not see the simulacrum trying, unless it is at the point where playing the role would require a flinch response that the compulsion wouldn't permit, thus cluing in observers (and probably the simulated intellect of the simulacrum). Generally, unless the simulacrum is always defiant-but-forced due to the nature of the role it enacts, I'd assume it wouldn't test orders any more than an obedient servant would.

Now, if it thought the "master" giving the commands was a fraud for other reasons (and "thought" is a strong word, given that it really has no "there" there with which to think, so perhaps "detected" is better?), it might defy just because it doesn't believe the order is legitimate.

Again, though, just my interpretation. Short of it is that I don't see this "defiance" thing coming up outside of extremely unusual circumstances.

[smcmike]

Honestly, I think the accepted-here assumption that the simulacrum is created with the resources expended that the original has at the moment of casting is spurious, and it is only with an assumption like that in place that "death" would translate to the simulacrum. I do not, actually, think that the RAW support either.

I had questions about this assumption too - maybe it makes more sense to say the copy is based upon the moment that the bit of hair or whatever was separated from the original... but the fact that the original has to be within touch range for the entire 12 hour casting time seems to be a pretty good indication of what you are copying (and also a pretty significant limit).

Another thing that bothers me a bit - say you copy someone who has divine spellcasting - magic that comes through the benevolence of a deity. Why would that deity grant those powers to a mere copy?

[wunderkid]

I had questions about this assumption too - maybe it makes more sense to say the copy is based upon the moment that the bit of hair or whatever was separated from the original... but the fact that the original has to be within touch range for the entire 12 hour casting time seems to be a pretty good indication of what you are copying (and also a pretty significant limit).

Another thing that bothers me a bit - say you copy someone who has divine spellcasting - magic that comes through the benevolence of a deity. Why would that deity grant those powers to a mere copy?

My interpretation is that the powers are granted at the start of the day and fill up the casters well of magical potential. After that the deity has no direct hand in the casters day. So the simulacrum simply copies that well of magic that already exists.

[Segev]

I had questions about this assumption too - maybe it makes more sense to say the copy is based upon the moment that the bit of hair or whatever was separated from the original... but the fact that the original has to be within touch range for the entire 12 hour casting time seems to be a pretty good indication of what you are copying (and also a pretty significant limit). I don't think the original has to be within range. Only the target - which is the snow/ice sculpture being made into the simulacrum.


Another thing that bothers me a bit - say you copy someone who has divine spellcasting - magic that comes through the benevolence of a deity. Why would that deity grant those powers to a mere copy?I'd argue that it doesn't. Especially not in 5e. In 5e, the simulacrum of a cleric of Bahamut is created with no more than the full complement of daily spell slots of the original, and cannot recover them. I'd probably reason that the power for those spells comes from the arcane might of a 7th level spell channeled and focused over 12 hours of casting time to steal a portion of the mystical favor granted by Bahamut to the cleric in question through the auspices of the bit of flesh used as a material component.

[KorvinStarmast]

By Malifice: (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20671707&postcount=20)


Its aware that it'll be free of its masters control, but hey - he's a friend remember. Master wont mind. In fact, as a friend, he should be happy that I am now a real wizard.

Dont get me wrong, you could give it some very very specific orders to attempt to stop this happeneing. Asminovs three laws of simulacrums or something. The three laws makes me laugh a bit, but the chained simulacrum issue, and the chain transmission of orders, ends up with a game of telephone (http://www.wikihow.com/Play-the-Telephone-Game).

By the time Simulacrum number 9 hears the orders that came from Creator, it is at least slightly garbled because the Simulacra are creatures, NOT robots.
Per the below point.

My two favorite points in this particular thread are as follows:
From RedMage125 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20676034&postcount=68)

... seem to think that a Simulacrum is a robot. You even use language like "orders given by prime will be processed by alpha's command". A simulacrum is a creature. It is a living, breathing creature with a fully array of stats, including INT, WIS, and CHA. As per the RAW of the spell, it MUST obey the commands of the creator, which means it has no choice but to obey, hence me using language of "compulsion". But it's usually not a problem, since it has a starting attitude of friendly towards the creator. So it thinks of the creator as its friend and wants to help anyway, but even if it was given an order it didn't like (a self-destructive one, for example), it would still have to do it.

What you fail to understand is that there is NO ORDER that Alpha can give that will make Beta feel that same compulsion to obey Caster (or anyone else), irrespective of Beta's will. Only orders directly given by Alpha. So if Caster gives Beta a self-destructive order, he could, in theory, say "I know I'm supposed to do what you say, but I don't want to do that", until Alpha personally tells him to do the same thing.
/snip/
Because simulacra are creatures, and not automatons, it's flawed thinking to believe that you can just give orders in perpetuity that it will continue to carry out like a computer executing the last command it was given.

[smcmike]

"You shape an illusory duplicate of one beast or humanoid that is within range for the entire casting time of the spell."

Standard usage suggest that the "within range" limitation is referring to the beast or humanoid, not the duplicate (which doesn't even exist until the spell is complete).

[Segev]

The chained simulacrum issue, and the chain transmission of orders, ends up with a game of telephone (http://www.wikihow.com/Play-the-Telephone-Game).

By the time Simulacrum number 9 hears the orders that came from Creator, it is at least slightly garbled because the Simulacra are creatures, NOT robots. There's literally no need to play Telephone. Even if, for some reason, you had to get the chain to pass orders specifically every time, you can write the order down and have it read. Or you can write it down and give the order, "Tell Beta to tell Gamma to tell .... Septimus to tell Octavius to read and follow the instructions on this piece of paper. Make sure Octavius gets this paper to read."

Of course, it's even easier than that: When Beta is created, Alpha tells it to obey you as it would Alpha. When Beta creates Gamma, it gives the same instruction regarding obeying you as if you were Beta. Etc.

Each simulacrum now is under magically-compelling orders to do whatever you tell it to do. So you just tell Octavius to do whatever it is you want him to do, and he obeys you as if you were Septimus. He doesn't even need to chain it back up to Alpha, because he doesn't care about Alpha's orders. Only yours and Septimus's.

[Segev]

"You shape an illusory duplicate of one beast or humanoid that is within range for the entire casting time of the spell."

Standard usage suggest that the "within range" limitation is referring to the beast or humanoid, not the duplicate (which doesn't even exist until the spell is complete).

...huh, wow, that's a change from earlier editions I did not remember. You are, in fact, correct. That puts a severe limit on the ability to create simulacra of unwilling creatures, and even limits what can be done with a wish-used-as-simulacrum spell, because it still requires the original to be in range when you make the wish.

[Reboot]

Here is the logic of the Simulacrum control transfer:

1) Simulacrum Beta is magically compelled to follow the orders of Simulacrum Alpha.
2) Simulacrum Alpha orders Simulacrum Beta to follow the instructions of Caster
3) Caster gives an order to Simulacrum Beta.

When (3) occurs, it carries the consideration of (1) because of (2). Beta is not directly compelled to follow the orders of Caster, Beta is indirectly compelled because of the order of Alpha. This is not an extrapolation of RAW, it is covered fully within the RAW.

I think this is where RAW and RAI may diverge. Let's look at the most relevant bit of the description again:

The simulacrum is friendly to you and creatures you designate. It obeys your spoken commands, moving and acting in accordance with your wishes and acting on your turn in combat.

It is friendly to you and creatures you designate. But it only obeys your spoken commands, not "the spoken commands of you and creatures you designate", which is what (3) requires. If they meant that, they would have said that in the same terms (possibly just merging the sentences). Can you twist it to interpret "your" as "your spoken commands and those of creatures you designate"? Probably, by strict RAW.

If I was going to rule on this, I would work with how I see the RAI and say that the magic's interpretation of an order from Alpha to Beta of "obey what Caster says" would be "obey the next thing Caster tells you to do". And that any attempt to extend that into infinity (or to such a high number of orders that it might as well be) would get the same treatment as "I wish for infinite wishes" - it just won't work. (Although you might not even notice - Beta's friendly to Caster, per the description. Ergo, he'll probably do what Caster says even without the magical backup.) And pushing too hard might cause the whole spell to fail and Beta to turn into a pile of slush.

[Segev]

I think this is where RAW and RAI may diverge. Let's look at the most relevant bit of the description again:

The simulacrum is friendly to you and creatures you designate. It obeys your spoken commands, moving and acting in accordance with your wishes and acting on your turn in combat.

It is friendly to you and creatures you designate. But it only obeys your spoken commands, not "the spoken commands of you and creatures you designate", which is what (3) requires. If they meant that, they would have said that in the same terms (possibly just merging the sentences). Can you twist it to interpret "your" as "your spoken commands and those of creatures you designate"? Probably, by strict RAW.

You don't need to. The "friendly to creatures you designate" is required because "friendly" is an attitude, not an action. But since it obeys your spoken orders, if you give an order to "Obey so-and-so's every spoken order as if I had spoken it, myself, from now until I say otherwise," then to obey your spoken order he must obey the spoken orders of so-and-so. Therefore, it works without having a specific "designate order-givers" clause the way it needs a "designate people to whom he will be friendly" clause.

[wunderkid]

I think this is where RAW and RAI may diverge. Let's look at the most relevant bit of the description again:

The simulacrum is friendly to you and creatures you designate. It obeys your spoken commands, moving and acting in accordance with your wishes and acting on your turn in combat.

It is friendly to you and creatures you designate. But it only obeys your spoken commands, not "the spoken commands of you and creatures you designate", which is what (3) requires. If they meant that, they would have said that in the same terms (possibly just merging the sentences). Can you twist it to interpret "your" as "your spoken commands and those of creatures you designate"? Probably, by strict RAW.

If I was going to rule on this, I would work with how I see the RAI and say that the magic's interpretation of an order from Alpha to Beta of "obey what Caster says" would be "obey the next thing Caster tells you to do". And that any attempt to extend that into infinity (or to such a high number of orders that it might as well be) would get the same treatment as "I wish for infinite wishes" - it just won't work. (Although you might not even notice - Beta's friendly to Caster, per the description. Ergo, he'll probably do what Caster says even without the magical backup.) And pushing too hard might cause the whole spell to fail and Beta to turn into a pile of slush.

But the only spoken command it NEEDS to follow is 'obey what caster commands'

As long as it follows that rule it is following that order. He can't ignore casters commands because doing so will go against the order.

No twisting or interpretation needed.

However trying to interpret 'obey casters commands' (notice plural with no limit set) into 'obey just one command' is an incredible stretch.

If you've already allowed the cheese of the simulacrum combo (which I'll point out is the only way this scenario can exist and is the closest to the same thing as wishing for infinite wishes as you can create infinite simulacrums all with wishes) then trying to limit the command side of things seems somewhat futile.

[RickAllison]

I think this is where RAW and RAI may diverge. Let's look at the most relevant bit of the description again:

The simulacrum is friendly to you and creatures you designate. It obeys your spoken commands, moving and acting in accordance with your wishes and acting on your turn in combat.

It is friendly to you and creatures you designate. But it only obeys your spoken commands, not "the spoken commands of you and creatures you designate", which is what (3) requires. If they meant that, they would have said that in the same terms (possibly just merging the sentences). Can you twist it to interpret "your" as "your spoken commands and those of creatures you designate"? Probably, by strict RAW.

If I was going to rule on this, I would work with how I see the RAI and say that the magic's interpretation of an order from Alpha to Beta of "obey what Caster says" would be "obey the next thing Caster tells you to do". And that any attempt to extend that into infinity (or to such a high number of orders that it might as well be) would get the same treatment as "I wish for infinite wishes" - it just won't work. (Although you might not even notice - Beta's friendly to Caster, per the description. Ergo, he'll probably do what Caster says even without the magical backup.) And pushing too hard might cause the whole spell to fail and Beta to turn into a pile of slush.

The logic is not founded on being friendly with the Caster. Rather, it is that because Alpha specifically ordered Beta to obey Caster. The magical compulsion then exists because when Caster orders Beta, the standing order of Alpha (which is magically compelling) activates. Caster's commands are compelling because Beta needs to obey Caster to fulfill the orders of Alpha.

Alpha could designate the entire party as friendly, but only give the order to obey Caster. He can be friendly with the fighter, Druid, and rogue, but only the commands of Caster are magically binding.

[jas61292]

You don't need to. The "friendly to creatures you designate" is required because "friendly" is an attitude, not an action. But since it obeys your spoken orders, if you give an order to "Obey so-and-so's every spoken order as if I had spoken it, myself, from now until I say otherwise," then to obey your spoken order he must obey the spoken orders of so-and-so. Therefore, it works without having a specific "designate order-givers" clause the way it needs a "designate people to whom he will be friendly" clause.

Ok seriously, this spell is ambiguous. There is not going to be a unambiguously correct interpretation. That said, the spell explicitly states that one creature can give it commands that it must obey. Any order that would make that untrue arguably goes beyond the power of the spell.

You disagree. That's nice. But while some people keep stating reasons why they don't think it would work, you keep repeating the same order over and over and claiming they are wrong. Repeating the same arguments over and over is not going to change anyone's opinion. So seriously, lets just move on.

[NewDM]

Ok seriously, this spell is ambiguous. There is not going to be a unambiguously correct interpretation. That said, the spell explicitly states that one creature can give it commands that it must obey. Any order that would make that untrue arguably goes beyond the power of the spell.

You disagree. That's nice. But while some people keep stating reasons why they don't think it would work, you keep repeating the same order over and over and claiming they are wrong. Repeating the same arguments over and over is not going to change anyone's opinion. So seriously, lets just move on.

The spell is not ambiguous. What is ambiguous is the extents that people in this thread will go to in order to PlotKnot to avoid using a house rule.

At the moment we have DMs claiming they don't need a house rule to fix this because their world doesn't have rubies, Simulacrum don't follow orders because they are incapable of remembering anything. They can't command their own Simulacrum to follow the instructions of someone else because 'memory' and 'not the creator'. Most of this disappears when we stop playing semantic games. If you take the plain reading of the spell and extrapolate that out, then we don't have any of the above.

The lengths people will go to in order to not have to admit a flaw with a spell in 5e are astounding.

[jas61292]

They can't command their own Simulacrum to follow the instructions of someone else because 'memory' and 'not the creator'.

This is literally the only thing that I am claiming is ambiguous. Not all the other stuff you mentioned. Though half that stuff is just stuff you don't like and not actual problems.

And even then, calling that one part ambiguous is being generous. As far as I am concerned, allowing a spell that explicitly gives one creature control to give a second creature control like people are claiming is just as much a case of "I can because it doesn't say I can't" as you whole Creation making magic items thing from that other thread. That is simply not how the game works.

[RickAllison]

This is literally the only thing that I am claiming is ambiguous. Not all the other stuff you mentioned. Though half that stuff is just stuff you don't like and not actual problems.

And even then, calling that one part ambiguous is being generous. As far as I am concerned, allowing a spell that explicitly gives one creature control to give a second creature control like people are claiming is just as much a case of "I can because it doesn't say I can't" as you whole Creation making magic items thing from that other thread. That is simply not how the game works.

No, the logic for letting specified allies (independently of the friendly designation elsewhere in the description) is sound. Another can order the simulacrum purely because to do so is to follow the orders of the creator. That is not a gross application of "It doesn't say I can't" like the Creation exploit (which I don't think works because the spell provides the vegetable or mineral matter of a magic item but not the enchantment. Attempting to make a +3 sword you have seen would just give you an identical-looking, ordinary sword), it is a logical application of the text already there.

[jas61292]

No, the logic for letting specified allies (independently of the friendly designation elsewhere in the description) is sound. Another can order the simulacrum purely because to do so is to follow the orders of the creator. That is not a gross application of "It doesn't say I can't" like the Creation exploit (which I don't think works because the spell provides the vegetable or mineral matter of a magic item but not the enchantment. Attempting to make a +3 sword you have seen would just give you an identical-looking, ordinary sword), it is a logical application of the text already there.

The issue is that it is extending the power of the magic. Would you allow the order "obey commands that I think" to work? Probably not. But while you might be thinking the reason is that the simulacrum has no way of knowing what you think, based on the logic being used, that is irrelevant. It has its order, so it should be magically compulsed whenever you think.

That is not how I believe it works. The magic is in what you say and what you say only. Just because you give an order that would, in theory make it listen to someone else does not pass the magical compulsion, as a compulsion comes only from things the creator says.

[smcmike]

No, the logic for letting specified allies (independently of the friendly designation elsewhere in the description) is sound. Another can order the simulacrum purely because to do so is to follow the orders of the creator. That is not a gross application of "It doesn't say I can't" like the Creation exploit (which I don't think works because the spell provides the vegetable or mineral matter of a magic item but not the enchantment. Attempting to make a +3 sword you have seen would just give you an identical-looking, ordinary sword), it is a logical application of the text already there.

I agree with all of this, though I do think allowing for crazy rogue AI is more fun.

[wunderkid]

The issue is that it is extending the power of the magic. Would you allow the order "obey commands that I think" to work? Probably not. But while you might be thinking the reason is that the simulacrum has no way of knowing what you think, based on the logic being used, that is irrelevant. It has its order, so it should be magically compulsed whenever you think.

That is not how I believe it works. The magic is in what you say and what you say only. Just because you give an order that would, in theory make it listen to someone else does not pass the magical compulsion, as a compulsion comes only from things the creator says.

Well as ive pointed out the following orders isn't directly magical. It could just be because of the way it's made in the same way us thinking or our heart beating isn't a choice we can personally make.

You can stand in an antimagic field and tell your simulacrum something and it will follow those orders.

[RickAllison]

The issue is that it is extending the power of the magic. Would you allow the order "obey commands that I think" to work? Probably not. But while you might be thinking the reason is that the simulacrum has no way of knowing what you think, based on the logic being used, that is irrelevant. It has its order, so it should be magically compulsed whenever you think.

That is not how I believe it works. The magic is in what you say and what you say only. Just because you give an order that would, in theory make it listen to someone else does not pass the magical compulsion, as a compulsion comes only from things the creator says.

If the caster is able to actually transmit the commands by telepathy or if the Simulacrum can read minds, then definitely "Obey commands that I think" would work. The limitation is that it actually has to receive the order.

I don't think the issue here is the logic. The issue is that it is further empowering a combination that is known to be broken already. Would we be having the same discussion if it was over the single Simulacrum being told "Go with the Slasher McStabby and do whatever he tells you to do"? I don't think so, that seems like a very reasonable order. However, it takes a whole new meaning of ridiculous when a caster is then applying that ruling to gain direct control over an endless chain of simulacra. Suddenly, the ruling goes from being a dynamic for teamwork to having the wizard commanding an army.

In summary, I don't think the issue here is the logic. It is the application of a rule that seems perfectly reasonable when there is one simulacrum, but is ridiculous when applied to increase the power of an already broken combination.

[Segev]

The idea that doing what the spell says you can is somehow leaning on "it doesn't say I can't" and that ordering something to obey others' orders is expanding the power of the spell is bizzare.

[Xetheral]

The idea that doing what the spell says you can is somehow leaning on "it doesn't say I can't" and that ordering something to obey others' orders is expanding the power of the spell is bizzare.

It seems reasonable to me. Transferrable obedience is much more valuable than fixed obedience. In the absence of a rule explicitly permitting such transference, it therefore seems valid to interpret the rules such that "Obey him as if he were me" is simply an invalid command that will not be followed, similar to how "Stop obeying me" won't be followed.

Is that interpretation required by the text? No. But it's still reasonable.

[RickAllison]

It seems reasonable to me. Transferrable obedience is much more valuable than fixed obedience. In the absence of a rule explicitly permitting such transference, it therefore seems valid to interpret the rules such that "Obey him as if he were me" is simply an invalid command that will not be followed, similar to how "Stop obeying me" won't be followed.

Is that interpretation required by the text? No. But it's still reasonable.

Not reasonable at all, really. "Obey him as if he were me" is an order that offers no contradiction. Remember that it doesn't transfer command of the simulacrum, it widens the number of people who can give it orders. If there is a conflict, it resolves it by the newest order taking precedence, just like if the creator was the only commander.

"Stop obeying me", on the other hand, sets up a paradox. It must obey your command, so it must refuse to obey your command, but...

I like to think it ends with the simulacrum detonating with Xd4 or d6 for every level of spell slot it had remaining. It creates a paradox that it cannot accomplish while living, but dying gives it a way to not fulfill orders because it can't receive orders.

[wunderkid]

It seems reasonable to me. Transferrable obedience is much more valuable than fixed obedience. In the absence of a rule explicitly permitting such transference, it therefore seems valid to interpret the rules such that "Obey him as if he were me" is simply an invalid command that will not be followed, similar to how "Stop obeying me" won't be followed.

Is that interpretation required by the text? No. But it's still reasonable.

It isn't 'transfered' though, it's simply piggybacked onto.

Stop obeying me is a logical paradox that can't be achieved that is why it won't be followed.

'obey this person' has no level of impossibility. In fact it's an incredibly simple command with almost no room for interpretation or wiggling. (although that doesn't stop people trying to find it). It is an order. It's no different from orders that exist in the real world. The only difference is we have the free will to disobey said orders while the sim is bound by them.

The simulacrum simply has to do as it is told by its creator.

If that is stand in that fire. If someone comes through that door attack them.

In fact it's entirely arguable that handing control of the simulacrum creates less power. Now instead of having the control of power split out across multiple instances (all of which are friendly to you and going to most likely act in your best interest anyway) you tie them all to a single point which can be assassinated or die through natural causes. If this happens the entire communication chain breaks down because they are all waiting for orders from you because you've not allowed them to individually set up power structures of their own and self regulate, which is a far more powerful command structure than simply assuming singular control.

And even then power wise it's exactly the same either way because it is no different from you telling your simulacrum to tell his simulacrum to do something. The end result is the action is still completed, It just cuts out the middle man in an already obscenely over powered situation. You already have complete control, it's just a question of eliminating the lag, which is honestly the teenyest of details when like I said all of these Sims will most likely be acting in your best interest already. (to add another point to the fire by the same token that it has to obey your orders no matter what they may be, it could be argued that it will always remain friendly to you too, regardless of how you treat it. If this is the case which re-reading the text I'd say it is then the need for assuming control is unnecessary too)

[Xetheral]

Not reasonable at all, really. "Obey him as if he were me" is an order that offers no contradiction. Remember that it doesn't transfer command of the simulacrum, it widens the number of people who can give it orders. If there is a conflict, it resolves it by the newest order taking precedence, just like if the creator was the only commander.

"Stop obeying me", on the other hand, sets up a paradox. It must obey your command, so it must refuse to obey your command, but...

I like to think it ends with the simulacrum detonating with Xd4 or d6 for every level of spell slot it had remaining. It creates a paradox that it cannot accomplish while living, but dying gives it a way to not fulfill orders because it can't receive orders.

Well, I consider it reasonable. The comparison to "Stop obeying me" wasn't supposed to imply that "Obey him as if he were me" was also a paradox. Rather, the point is that just because a command can be given doesn't mean it is valid. If you want to interpret it such that only paradoxical orders are invalid, that's fine and reasonable. But I argue that it's also reasonable to interpret it that orders permitting control to be transferred/shared are likewise invalid.

I'm not even sure which interpretation I prefer. But I find them both reasonable.

[RickAllison]

Well, I consider it reasonable. The comparison to "Stop obeying me" wasn't supposed to imply that "Obey him as if he were me" was also a paradox. Rather, the point is that just because a command can be given doesn't mean it is valid. If you want to interpret it such that only paradoxical orders are invalid, that's fine and reasonable. But I argue that it's also reasonable to interpret it that orders permitting control to be transferred/shared are likewise invalid.

I'm not even sure which interpretation I prefer. But I find them both reasonable.

Okay, I would like the logic behind "Obey him as if he were me" being a paradox. That seems like the perfect thing to spark up some great debate! :smallsmile:

I apologize if I ever seem hostile, I just really like debating and this thread has been much more reasonable when it comes to actually discussing the topics. I heartily appreciate your perspective and logic on this matter. From a balance perspective, I can see where you are coming from (though if it's balance, Simulacrum Chain has already tossed that out the window...), but I can't yet see the paradox in it.

[Xetheral]

Okay, I would like the logic behind "Obey him as if he were me" being a paradox. That seems like the perfect thing to spark up some great debate! :smallsmile:

I apologize if I ever seem hostile, I just really like debating and this thread has been much more reasonable when it comes to actually discussing the topics. I heartily appreciate your perspective and logic on this matter. From a balance perspective, I can see where you are coming from (though if it's balance, Simulacrum Chain has already tossed that out the window...), but I can't yet see the paradox in it.

I tried to convey that I didn't think it was a paradox. Sorry if I was unclear!

[jas61292]

If the caster is able to actually transmit the commands by telepathy or if the Simulacrum can read minds, then definitely "Obey commands that I think" would work. The limitation is that it actually has to receive the order.

See, I think this is a limitation that you are just extrapolating because it supports what you already believe. I don't really think that limitation is actually there. What do I mean by this? Well, the spell says it will obey your spoken commands. That is two limiting factors on the commands it will obey: 1) they have to be spoken, and 2) they have to be from you.

The argument that you and others make is that you can make an order that effectively allows you to circumvent #2. My response is that if that is the case, then you should equally be allowed to make an order that would allow you to circumvent #1. The only reason you could possibly say that this would not work is because it is absurd. But since when do reason and common sense come into the effects of magical spells?

Now, I agree that circumventing #1 is absurd. However, because of that, I find #2 to be equally absurd, because allowing #2 means you should allow #1. Both are trying to use orders, which are the actual function of the spell, to overcome the inherent limitations of the spell, so to me, neither should work.

[RickAllison]

See, I think this is a limitation that you are just extrapolating because it supports what you already believe. I don't really think that limitation is actually there. What do I mean by this? Well, the spell says it will obey your spoken commands. That is two limiting factors on the commands it will obey: 1) they have to be spoken, and 2) they have to be from you.

The argument that you and others make is that you can make an order that effectively allows you to circumvent #2. My response is that if that is the case, then you should equally be allowed to make an order that would allow you to circumvent #1. The only reason you could possibly say that this would not work is because it is absurd. But since when do reason and common sense come into the effects of magical spells?

Now, I agree that circumventing #1 is absurd. However, because of that, I find #2 to be equally absurd, because allowing #2 means you should allow #1. Both are trying to use orders, which are the actual function of the spell, to overcome the inherent limitations of the spell, so to me, neither should work.

Okay, so lets go with the examples that follow your two requirements. I'm game.

Example 1: "Obey the commands I am thinking." This has to be a verbal order (1) spoken by you (2) telling it to fulfill whatever commands you are thinking. Well, it still has to know what you are thinking through telepathy, mind-reading etc., but otherwise it fulfills the test just fine! If you think a command and it can receive said command, it must comply based on the above spoken command delivered by you. Checks out fine logically.

Example 2: "Obey this guy as if he were me." This is a spoken command (1) delivered by you (2) telling it to fulfill whatever commands the designated person says. The designated person's commands have no magical impetus of their own, the impetus comes from this command that follows the requisite conditions.

In both examples, the simulacrum must obey either the received thought commands or the commands from the second person specifically because not to do so would be violating a command given verbally (again, 1) by the creator (again, 2). If that specific command was ever revoked, the magical impetus is gone. So there, you have scenarios where the requisite conditions are fulfilled and so the use is expanded. This seems like a great use for a ghostwise halfling, actually.

[jas61292]

Okay, so lets go with the examples that follow your two requirements. I'm game.

Example 1: "Obey the commands I am thinking." This has to be a verbal order (1) spoken by you (2) telling it to fulfill whatever commands you are thinking. Well, it still has to know what you are thinking through telepathy, mind-reading etc., but otherwise it fulfills the test just fine! If you think a command and it can receive said command, it must comply based on the above spoken command delivered by you. Checks out fine logically.

Example 2: "Obey this guy as if he were me." This is a spoken command (1) delivered by you (2) telling it to fulfill whatever commands the designated person says. The designated person's commands have no magical impetus of their own, the impetus comes from this command that follows the requisite conditions.

In both examples, the simulacrum must obey either the received thought commands or the commands from the second person specifically because not to do so would be violating a command given verbally (again, 1) by the creator (again, 2). If that specific command was ever revoked, the magical impetus is gone. So there, you have scenarios where the requisite conditions are fulfilled and so the use is expanded. This seems like a great use for a ghostwise halfling, actually.

Again, my argument would be that you are adding clauses that are not there by claiming that it must receive the order. Nowhere does the spell state that the simulacrum must hear the orders. It just says the orders have to be verbal. By a strict reading of the spell, even if the simulacrum is 10000 miles away, so long as you say the commands verbally, they work. Once again, this seems absurd, but the point is that you need to add in constraints that are not present in the actual text of the spell to come up with any results that strictly allows you to transfer commands but not give commands without speaking.

[RickAllison]

Again, my argument would be that you are adding clauses that are not there by claiming that it must receive the order. Nowhere does the spell state that the simulacrum must hear the orders. It just says the orders have to be verbal. By a strict reading of the spell, even if the simulacrum is 10000 miles away, so long as you say the commands verbally, they work. Once again, this seems absurd, but the point is that you need to add in constraints that are not present in the actual text of the spell to come up with any results that strictly allows you to transfer commands but not give commands without speaking.

Fair enough, I see what you are arguing now and I agree. Fixing the spell to be consistent might be more difficult than I thought.

[Vogonjeltz]

Nope. Having the power to cast a spell means you have all the power that spell can offer you. Therefore, it is not an increase in power to expend a spell slot and gain the effect of having expended that spell slot.

Any argument to the contrary can be equally applied to a simulacrum of a fighter being unable to don armor or pick up a sword, because it didn't have the AC nor the damage capacity granted by those items until it picked them up, and therefore it increased its power. (The proper way to look at it is that the simulacrum always had the power to wield a sword and wear armor; using said power is not an increase in power.)

At no time did I argue that expending a spell slot is an increase in power, so you can put that straw man right back into the mattress it emerged from.

It is the effect of the spell which would determine if an increase in power is taking place. Simulacrum creates a minion who follows the orders of the caster. That's an increase in power.

Giving the simulacrum new abilities it did not already possess would indeed be an increase in power (or be learning, depending on how it's looked at). So, any magic item that granted the bearer new abilities would indeed not function for the simulacrum (i.e. If being attuned to a magic sword innately let the owner teleport themselves then the Simulacrum would be incapable of using that function. Conversely, if the sword itself was doing the teleporting, the Simulacrum would be fine. It's a question of the provenance of the power, is the sword doing it, or just enabling it and the owner is the one doing it?)

But it all boils down to: The thing you are attacking is not the thing I said.


The Simulacra is armed with wish.

While it is bound to follow orders, it has a certain amount of leeway in deciding how to best interpret them and carry them out (barring some very very precise orders). For example, I would have it interpret an order for 'create me more simulacrums so I can get more wishes' as follows:

The simulacrum knows it is a simulacrum and that it cant regain wish or simulacrum if it casts either while it remains a simulacrum itself (its a simulacrum of the wizard remember, and knows what he does). Therefore it decides the best way to get more wishes and simulacrums (without destroying itself in the process - just like the PC it is a copy of, it doesnt want to permanently lose spell slots, or be used up and die) is to use its wish to instead 'Wish itself into a real wizard and no longer a simulacrum' (it figures risking burnout on this wish is worth it). Lets call this 'the Pinnochio wish'.

Bang presto. We now have an exact copy of the Wizard standing in front of him. A real one. No longer a simulacrum, and no longer bound to follow the wizard.

As a DM I would reverse the (new) NPCs alignment to evil (as a side effect of the wish). Mainly for the lulz.

*Roll initiative*

I agree, the order has to be verbalized by the character (so no metagame notions are allowed). This makes telling the Simulacrum to create a copy of the wizard in question extremely dangerous as the exact phrasing is important and probably impossible to dummy proof. I would, at no time, violate the rule about the simulacrum following the casters orders.


Except it acts specifically on your wishes. If you want it to.pursue a specific course of action.and it is aware of that, that is what it will do, as a copy of you, it knows everything you do.

I don't think this is actually in evidence. However, even if, for the sake of argument, the simulacrum knew everything you did (at the time it was created) it would diverge after that being incapable of answering how you 'would' answer, as you are no longer the same person you were then.


Ok, so I just typed "define order" into google, and got this: "give an authoritative direction or instruction to do something." Now ignoring the fact that "something" is in and of itself highly ambiguous regardless of what definition you use, I look at this and it just confirms my view. "Follow someone else's orders" is not actually telling anyone to do anything. It is establishing circumstances in which you many potentially do have to do something in the future. But it is not actually instructing you do do anything.

Now, I'm sure you will take exception to this as well, but if you do, then once again I say that, in the absence of a game definition, we are not going to have an agreement, and neither interpretation is technically incorrect.

Sounds like it's more of a guideline than an order (in that the former is broad and non-specific, the latter is limited and specific).

[Segev]

It seems reasonable to me. Transferrable obedience is much more valuable than fixed obedience. In the absence of a rule explicitly permitting such transference, it therefore seems valid to interpret the rules such that "Obey him as if he were me" is simply an invalid command that will not be followed, similar to how "Stop obeying me" won't be followed.

Is that interpretation required by the text? No. But it's still reasonable.

The interpretation that says the simulacrum can disobey your order to obey the orders of somebody else is flagrantly violating the text of the spell. It is not reasonable as an "interpretation" of the RAW. It can be a house rule, if you want to make it such, but it is not what the spell says, and no valid reading of the text of the spell as written supports it.



That's an interesting point on the simulacrum not technically having to hear the verbal order to be compelled to obey it. I would argue that it's intended, and that it is well within the standard reading of the words to interpret it that way, requiring no violation of what is said nor insertion of anything beyond obvious context, but I will also agree that it is not, technically, ever said, so ruling that hearing the commands is not necessary is valid.

That does mean, still, that "obey every order I think" doesn't work, for the same reason that commanding a simulacrum of a 1st level human fighter to fly would fail: no matter how hard it may try, it can't follow the order. I believe it would try to guess what you're thinking and obey it to the best of its ability, but it couldn't actually read your mind nor act on your thoughts unless you verbalized or otherwise indicated them.

But it does open interesting possibilities with the spell, if you use it that way. For instance, you could verbally order it to say something, and that message would be heard by anybody near it, no matter how far away you were. I think this is a deliberate misinterpretation of the connotation of the RAW, but you could technically claim it within the RAW if you wanted.

[Segev]

At no time did I argue that expending a spell slot is an increase in power, so you can put that straw man right back into the mattress it emerged from.What straw man? I didn't say you tried to make that argument directly. I am pointing out that you MUST make that argument to say that casting simulacrum is an increase in power for the simulacrum. Because if it was created with the power to cast that spell, using that power (by casting the spell) doesn't increase it's power. Since you have just stated that you agree that casting a spell doesn't increase its power, the "can't increase in power" clause obviously doesn't prevent it from casting simulacrum.


It is the effect of the spell which would determine if an increase in power is taking place. Simulacrum creates a minion who follows the orders of the caster. That's an increase in power.Nope. He has the spell and the spell slot. His power already includes the ability to have a minion who follows his orders. Using that ability doesn't increase his power; it just uses the power he has.

To claim otherwise is to claim that the effect of casting tongues is to let the simulacrum speak to beings whose languages it did not already know, which is an increase in power, so the simulacrum cannot cast tongues. It similarly cannot cast sleep, because having any foes sleeping is an increase in power over them being awake. Similar arguments exist for every single spell it could possibly cast.


Giving the simulacrum new abilities it did not already possess would indeed be an increase in power (or be learning, depending on how it's looked at). So, any magic item that granted the bearer new abilities would indeed not function for the simulacrum (i.e. If being attuned to a magic sword innately let the owner teleport themselves then the Simulacrum would be incapable of using that function. Conversely, if the sword itself was doing the teleporting, the Simulacrum would be fine. It's a question of the provenance of the power, is the sword doing it, or just enabling it and the owner is the one doing it?)Your semantics fail you. If the simulacrum had, at the moment of creation, the ability to attune magic items and make use of them, then it can do so and gain whatever benefits accrue. If it did not, then it obviously cannot use magic items. To argue that it can't gain the benefits of a magic item because the item is "increasing its power" means that it cannot use nonmagical items, either, since it was explicitly created without equipment and any equipment increases its power. (I argue, instead, that it has the innate power to use equipment, so it is not increasing in power, but merely exercising existing power, when it equips and uses gear, magical or otherwise.)


But it all boils down to: The thing you are attacking is not the thing I said.False. You said that casting simulacrum increases the power of its caster. I said that it does not, because having the ability to cast simulacrum means you already have the power to have the effect of simulacrum at your disposal. Using that power is not an increase; it is simply using what you already have.

Claiming I'm putting words in your mouth is failing to address my argument. I am not saying you ever said that casting a spell increases the caster's power; I am saying that your claim that casting simulacrum is an increase in power requires that to be so in order for your claim to be true and valid. If you agree that casting a spell you already have the ability to cast does not increase your power, then you must also agree that casting simulacrum does not increase your power.

Your semantic game of "casting the spell doesn't, but the effect of the spell does" holds no water, since casting a spell but not getting its effect means, once again, that you essentially cannot use spells. At all. Because all of them have effects, and all of those effects can be said to increase your power if you do not accept that having the ability to cast a spell gives you the power to have the effect of the spell.

[wunderkid]

See, I think this is a limitation that you are just extrapolating because it supports what you already believe. I don't really think that limitation is actually there. What do I mean by this? Well, the spell says it will obey your spoken commands. That is two limiting factors on the commands it will obey: 1) they have to be spoken, and 2) they have to be from you.

The argument that you and others make is that you can make an order that effectively allows you to circumvent #2. My response is that if that is the case, then you should equally be allowed to make an order that would allow you to circumvent #1. The only reason you could possibly say that this would not work is because it is absurd. But since when do reason and common sense come into the effects of magical spells?

Now, I agree that circumventing #1 is absurd. However, because of that, I find #2 to be equally absurd, because allowing #2 means you should allow #1. Both are trying to use orders, which are the actual function of the spell, to overcome the inherent limitations of the spell, so to me, neither should work.

But #1 and #2 have no correlation, arguing that if B is real then A must be real is very much not a valid point and feels incredibly like straw.

Clearly the limitation when something must be spoken is that it also must be heard. Otherwise it's entire existance in the sentence is mute and it would just say must obey your orders.

Saying it has to follow orders, doesn't mean 'it must follow orders except orders like this for 'reasons''. There are no limitations being extrapolated. You issue an order. It follows the order. The fact that order is to follow another person's orders makes it no less valid. There's no time out, no magical puff of energy the caster needs to emit. In effect when the caster says something it becomes the law. The only law that matters and one that can not be broken by the sim.

So when the law is 'do everything Bob says', then if you don't do what he says you are breaking the law.

[Xetheral]

The interpretation that says the simulacrum can disobey your order to obey the orders of somebody else is flagrantly violating the text of the spell. It is not reasonable as an "interpretation" of the RAW. It can be a house rule, if you want to make it such, but it is not what the spell says, and no valid reading of the text of the spell as written supports it.

In my opinion the interpretation is reasonable: we know with certainty that some orders will not be followed (e.g. "Stop Obeying Me"), despite no provision in the text for such contingencies. Without any text informing the decision, it is a matter of interpretation as to which orders will not be followed, and whether that category is limited only to impossible/paradoxical orders or whether that category also includes commands that arguably increase the scope of the spell.

You are welcome to your opinion that such an interpretation is not reasonable. However, I do not find persuasive your unsupported assertions that the interpretation "is flagrantly violating the text of the spell" and that "no valid reading of the text" supports it.


Saying it has to follow orders, doesn't mean 'it must follow orders except orders like this for 'reasons''. There are no limitations being extrapolated. You issue an order. It follows the order. The fact that order is to follow another person's orders makes it no less valid. There's no time out, no magical puff of energy the caster needs to emit. In effect when the caster says something it becomes the law. The only law that matters and one that can not be broken by the sim.

Except that, for some orders, the "law" will be broken by the sim, as I've described above.

[wunderkid]

In my opinion the interpretation is reasonable: we know with certainty that some orders will not be followed (e.g. "Stop Obeying Me"), despite no provision in the text for such contingencies. Without any text informing the decision, it is a matter of interpretation as to which orders will not be followed, and whether that category is limited only to impossible/paradoxical orders or whether that category also includes commands that arguably increase the scope of the spell.

You are welcome to your opinion that such an interpretation is not reasonable. However, I do not find persuasive your unsupported assertions that the interpretation "is flagrantly violating the text of the spell" and that "no valid reading of the text" supports it.



Except that, for some orders, the "law" will be broken by the sim, as I've described above.

What you are basically saying is that because you issue an order that is IMPOSSIBLE to be carried out somehow invalids a perfectly legitimate order.

I'm afraid it doesn't quite work that way, with your example you've left the sim no way to follow the 'law'. It is impossible for him to follow it. That is why it is an exception. And despite that it would try to obey the 'stop obeying me' command. It would fail because it's a paradox but it wouldn't in any way try to avoid that order. It simply isn't at all possible to do. So there is no "category" of orders that will not be followed, all orders will be followed unless impossible to do so.

In any situation where it can follow the law it will. That much is simple and set in stone.

So if the law is 'do whatever Bob says' you have offered no reason at all as to why he won't follow the law.

This is not an opinion. This is you trying to apply an irrelevant situation where it's impossible to obey an order and somehow apply that to an order that can be easily followed.

There is no interpretation in the text either.

"It obeys your spoken commands, moving and acting in accordance with your wishes"

Not 'it obeys some of your commands, and only acts in accordance with your wishes in some situations'

You command it to do as Bob says. It obeys. There is no reason it wouldn't. No limitations and not even a hint that there are exceptions.

Any and every order you give it will be followed so far as is practically possible. If you ordered it to take a dump on the moon then it would do everything within its own power to achieve this regardless of if it was possible. It will never willingly ignore an order.

So trying to claim that giving it an order it can't follow in any way impacts or changes the 'interpretation' of orders it can follow is hogwash.

It also does not increase the scope of the spell at all. As pointed out in my previous post it in fact decrease it by putting all of the power into one easily assassinated focal point, rather than having a self regulating army who are all friendly and almost certainly going to follow your orders anyway. And to double that up it also weakens the simulacrum as now it would follow orders from two people instead of just one. The only thing who 'gains' any degree of power is the caster. So even then no matter how you look at it the simulacrum will not be gaining power in any sense of the word.

[Xetheral]

What you are basically saying is that because you issue an order that is IMPOSSIBLE to be carried out somehow invalids a perfectly legitimate order.

I'm afraid it doesn't quite work that way, with your example you've left the sim no way to follow the 'law'. It is impossible for him to follow it. That is why it is an exception. And despite that it would try to obey the 'stop obeying me' command. It would fail because it's a paradox but it wouldn't in any way try to avoid that order. It simply isn't at all possible to do. So there is no "category" of orders that will not be followed, all orders will be followed unless impossible to do so.


Your characterization of my argument is incorrect. It would be more accurate to say that I am arguing that the existence of orders which will not be obeyed proves that, despite the text of the spell, not all orders are obeyed. Therefore, the mere fact that an order can be given does not mean that it will necessarily be obeyed.

Let's consider in more detail what types of orders can be given and yet won't be obeyed:

First, inherently-paradoxical orders, by definition, cannot be obeyed. Therefore they will not be obeyed. Example: "Do not obey this order."

Second, orders that are impossible to accomplish cannot be obeyed. Therefore they will not be obeyed. Example: "Prove that one equals two."

Third, orders that contradict fundamental limitations on what the simulacrum can do cannot be obeyed without violating those constraints. Therefore, such orders will not be obeyed. Example: "Regain your expended spell slots."

I think we can all agree that orders falling into these first three categories won't be obeyed, because it would be impossible for the simulacrum to do so. The next ones aren't so clear cut.

Fourth, orders that contradict the requirement that the simulacrum obeys your orders. Example: "do not obey my orders" or, more problematically: "do not listen to anything I say" or, even worse: "do not parse anything you hear me say". Unlike the previous categories, these commands could be obeyed, but to do so would contradict the requirement that the simulacrum obeys your orders. It is therefore a matter of DM interpretation whether such commands are obeyed (because not doing so would violate the rule that the simulacrum obeys you), or not obeyed (because doing so would violate the rule that the simulacrum obeys you).

Fifth, orders that contradict other explicit rules about what the simulacrum will do. Here we get another question of interpretation, because the requirement that the simulacrum obeys your commands is part of this category, and the text of the spell does not indicate a priority system by which to resolve conflicts. So if the simulacrum obeys the order, it's in violation of some other text of the spell, and if it doesn't obey the order, it's in violation of the rule requiring it to obey your orders. Example: "Stop being friendly towards me." Whether the simulacrum obeys your command or not will depend on the DM's interpretation of the spell (in particular, whether the DM views the friendly stipulation as a one-time thing setting of the simulacrum's state or an ongoing requirement).

Sixth, orders that contradict implicit limitations on the power of the spell. This category suffers from the problem of being ill-defined. Not everyone will agree what constitutes an implicit limitation. Example: "Obey him as if he were me." Some (most?) posters strictly parse the requirement that "[The simulacrum] obeys your spoken commands" on its own merits, noting that it says nothing about the simulacrum being unable to be required to obey others. Other posters interpret the requirement that the simulacrum obey you in the context of the previous statement, which said "The simulacrum is friendly to you and creatures you designate." They note that "and creatures you designate" was left out of the requirement that the simulacrum obey you, and view that omission as potentially significant. (They further note that the rest of the sentence after the requirement that the simulacrum obeys you is in the context of moving and actions in combat, suggesting that scope of the obedience requirement may be limited.) So people can (and do!) disagree over what the implicit limitations are.

Of course, even if you believe that implicit limitations exists, you may believe that they should be trumped by the explicit obedience requirement. That's fine, and perfectly reasonable. On the other hand, given that there are four-five other categories of examples where the obedience requirement is show to not be absolute, I assert that it's also reasonable to conclude that the obedience requirement should give way to any implicit limitations. Nothing in the text of the spell renders one interpretation more reasonable that the other.


In any situation where it can follow the law it will. That much is simple and set in stone.

I agree, but the complexities of categories four through six demonstrate that there are situations where DMs might disagree on what "laws" the simulacrum can follow.


This is not an opinion. This is you trying to apply an irrelevant situation where it's impossible to obey an order and somehow apply that to an order that can be easily followed.

There is no interpretation in the text either.
...

So trying to claim that giving it an order it can't follow in any way impacts or changes the 'interpretation' of orders it can follow is hogwash.

(Emphasis added.) Your belief that my opinion/interpretation is hogwash does not in any way mean that my opinion is not an opinion or that my interpretation is not an interpretation.


It also does not increase the scope of the spell at all. As pointed out in my previous post it in fact decrease it by putting all of the power into one easily assassinated focal point, rather than having a self regulating army who are all friendly and almost certainly going to follow your orders anyway. And to double that up it also weakens the simulacrum as now it would follow orders from two people instead of just one. The only thing who 'gains' any degree of power is the caster. So even then no matter how you look at it the simulacrum will not be gaining power in any sense of the word.

(Emphasis added.) My reference to the scope of the spell was indeed to the power the spell provides to the caster.

[Zalabim]

I did a lot of reading last night to get acquainted with the 18 or so spells that give you the ability to order a thing around. Animate Dead, Create Undead, Animate Objects, and Unseen Servant all tell you that they obey the mental order issued until it's completed. Dominate Beast, Dominate Monster, and Dominate Person all say that the creature obeys the commands you give through your telepathic link to the best of its ability. Conjure Animals, Conjure Celestial, Conjure Elemental, Conjure Fey, Conjure Minor Elementals, and Conjure Woodland Beings all say that the creature(s) obey your spoken commands (without violating their alignment). Planar Binding also very obviously allows very broad orders, which the creature will obey to the best of its ability, and possibly to the exact letter depending on its attitude. All these spells also say what the thing does if it doesn't have, or finishes, a command.

Giant Insect, True Polymorph (Object to Creature), and Simulacrum are less defined than that. True Polymorph doesn't even require you to give commands, but the other two use spoken orders, just like the Conjure X spells. All three tell you the creatures move and act as you decide. Some things are noteworthy about these spells. Unlike the Conjure spells, all these creatures act during your turn, not their turn. These spells have no statement of what the creature does if you don't command it. You could interpret that these spells make creatures with harder to define responses than the others, so they weren't defined. Or it could be interpreted that these spells make creatures that are less independent than the similar spells, so they only act and move when they have commands. In that case, they wouldn't do anything without an order. Also, these three spells are able to make creatures that are incapable of understanding language.

It is a weaker interpretation, but I think it's valid to consider the creatures made by these spells to be puppets while they're under your control. After all, before you made them, they were normal insects, an ice sculpture, or an object. I would describe it like Snow Crash's explanation of pre-babel language, where understanding the word for an action was the same as performing the action. Beings that could understand language abstractly had vast amounts of power over the masses who functioned like machines, executing orders without understanding them. /tangent. They would be unable to follow complex commands and obviously a magical puppet under the caster's control.

As an aside, I realize the difference between a spell like Animate Dead's "Once given an order, the creature continues to follow it until its task is complete" and a spell like Conjure Animals that has no such line about continuing to follow orders may be that you cannot change an Animate'd creature's orders mid-stride. If you order a skeleton to dig a trench 4 feet deep and 12 feet long, it will do so. If it's halfway done and you decide you want the skeleton to get you a glass of lemonade, will it do so after it's finished digging the trench?

[NewDM]

This is literally the only thing that I am claiming is ambiguous. Not all the other stuff you mentioned. Though half that stuff is just stuff you don't like and not actual problems.

And even then, calling that one part ambiguous is being generous. As far as I am concerned, allowing a spell that explicitly gives one creature control to give a second creature control like people are claiming is just as much a case of "I can because it doesn't say I can't" as you whole Creation making magic items thing from that other thread. That is simply not how the game works.

JeremyCrawford replied to my friend on Twitter about Creation (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/722199025751973888). The design intent of the spell was not to make magic items. So that entire point is ceded (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/cede).


The interpretation that says the simulacrum can disobey your order to obey the orders of somebody else is flagrantly violating the text of the spell. It is not reasonable as an "interpretation" of the RAW. It can be a house rule, if you want to make it such, but it is not what the spell says, and no valid reading of the text of the spell as written supports it.

That's an interesting point on the simulacrum not technically having to hear the verbal order to be compelled to obey it. I would argue that it's intended, and that it is well within the standard reading of the words to interpret it that way, requiring no violation of what is said nor insertion of anything beyond obvious context, but I will also agree that it is not, technically, ever said, so ruling that hearing the commands is not necessary is valid.

That does mean, still, that "obey every order I think" doesn't work, for the same reason that commanding a simulacrum of a 1st level human fighter to fly would fail: no matter how hard it may try, it can't follow the order. I believe it would try to guess what you're thinking and obey it to the best of its ability, but it couldn't actually read your mind nor act on your thoughts unless you verbalized or otherwise indicated them.

But it does open interesting possibilities with the spell, if you use it that way. For instance, you could verbally order it to say something, and that message would be heard by anybody near it, no matter how far away you were. I think this is a deliberate misinterpretation of the connotation of the RAW, but you could technically claim it within the RAW if you wanted.

That's ok. there are no rules for sound so they may very well travel 1,000 miles. We simply don't know.

[wunderkid]

Your characterization of my argument is incorrect. It would be more accurate to say that I am arguing that the existence of orders which will not be obeyed proves that, despite the text of the spell, not all orders are obeyed. Therefore, the mere fact that an order can be given does not mean that it will necessarily be obeyed.

Let's consider in more detail what types of orders can be given and yet won't be obeyed:

First, inherently-paradoxical orders, by definition, cannot be obeyed. Therefore they will not be obeyed. Example: "Do not obey this order."

Second, orders that are impossible to accomplish cannot be obeyed. Therefore they will not be obeyed. Example: "Prove that one equals two."

Third, orders that contradict fundamental limitations on what the simulacrum can do cannot be obeyed without violating those constraints. Therefore, such orders will not be obeyed. Example: "Regain your expended spell slots."

I think we can all agree that orders falling into these first three categories won't be obeyed, because it would be impossible for the simulacrum to do so. The next ones aren't so clear cut.

Fourth, orders that contradict the requirement that the simulacrum obeys your orders. Example: "do not obey my orders" or, more problematically: "do not listen to anything I say" or, even worse: "do not parse anything you hear me say". Unlike the previous categories, these commands could be obeyed, but to do so would contradict the requirement that the simulacrum obeys your orders. It is therefore a matter of DM interpretation whether such commands are obeyed (because not doing so would violate the rule that the simulacrum obeys you), or not obeyed (because doing so would violate the rule that the simulacrum obeys you).

Fifth, orders that contradict other explicit rules about what the simulacrum will do. Here we get another question of interpretation, because the requirement that the simulacrum obeys your commands is part of this category, and the text of the spell does not indicate a priority system by which to resolve conflicts. So if the simulacrum obeys the order, it's in violation of some other text of the spell, and if it doesn't obey the order, it's in violation of the rule requiring it to obey your orders. Example: "Stop being friendly towards me." Whether the simulacrum obeys your command or not will depend on the DM's interpretation of the spell (in particular, whether the DM views the friendly stipulation as a one-time thing setting of the simulacrum's state or an ongoing requirement).

Sixth, orders that contradict implicit limitations on the power of the spell. This category suffers from the problem of being ill-defined. Not everyone will agree what constitutes an implicit limitation. Example: "Obey him as if he were me." Some (most?) posters strictly parse the requirement that "[The simulacrum] obeys your spoken commands" on its own merits, noting that it says nothing about the simulacrum being unable to be required to obey others. Other posters interpret the requirement that the simulacrum obey you in the context of the previous statement, which said "The simulacrum is friendly to you and creatures you designate." They note that "and creatures you designate" was left out of the requirement that the simulacrum obey you, and view that omission as potentially significant. (They further note that the rest of the sentence after the requirement that the simulacrum obeys you is in the context of moving and actions in combat, suggesting that scope of the obedience requirement may be limited.) So people can (and do!) disagree over what the implicit limitations are.

Of course, even if you believe that implicit limitations exists, you may believe that they should be trumped by the explicit obedience requirement. That's fine, and perfectly reasonable. On the other hand, given that there are four-five other categories of examples where the obedience requirement is show to not be absolute, I assert that it's also reasonable to conclude that the obedience requirement should give way to any implicit limitations. Nothing in the text of the spell renders one interpretation more reasonable that the other.



I agree, but the complexities of categories four through six demonstrate that there are situations where DMs might disagree on what "laws" the simulacrum can follow.



(Emphasis added.) Your belief that my opinion/interpretation is hogwash does not in any way mean that my opinion is not an opinion or that my interpretation is not an interpretation.



(Emphasis added.) My reference to the scope of the spell was indeed to the power the spell provides to the caster.


Right lets break down 1 through 6.

1. This is what i define as an impossible order. you create an order that simply can not be followed as either outcome would result in failure before it even begins.

2. The simulacrum can obey this order. It will do everything in its power to prove that one does equal two. It will fail, however it still attempts it. Its exactly the same as the order: 'Kill that goblin (or tarassque) with this daisy' But it tries fails and dies in the attempt.

Issuing an order does not mean it succeeds at it or can succeed at it. but it will try. Hells i could try to research if there are any situations where one does equal two. I would still be trying to fulfill the order.

3. Once again it would try to regain them, it may take a long rest, or try to find another method of regaining spell slots. But once again just because an order is issued it doesnt mean it automatically succeeds at the task as with the goblin or that it wont try to achieve what youre asking.

4. Do not obey my orders is another impossible paradoxial order. These should be automatically discounted.

Do not listen to anything i say or do not parse anything i say. If this was truly your characters wish then the simulacrum could burst his eardrums fulfilling this order. Or less severely simply cover his ears.

And the point still stands it will TRY not to obey your orders. But due to you trying to create a paradoxial order it HAS to fail.

5. with this order issued the simulacrum would stop acting like a friend to you, the 'friendly' status is a mechanic not an RP thing you could factor into an order without once again creating a paradox. Mechanically he would be 'friendly' but he might be rude or gruff, and act exactly how a friend wouldnt, but would still follow orders and help you out. (basically think snape. Acted like a complete codswollop but was still mechanically 'friendly', there are probably lots of better examples but ive just woken up and drawing a mind blank, but situations where the 'douche' of a movie actually turn out to have been helping the hero along are many)

6. the important distinction and why it was left out of the obey part here is that friendly does not mean follows orders. As seen with the charm effects. It means that the sim will treat the party as friends. But nobody except yourself will be able to command it.


There is no order i can think of that would effect the power of the spell itself so if you could provide some examples of that id appreciate it.

But following the order to follow another persons commands is an order which contains no paradox. And in all of your examples 1 through 5, out of all of them the only orders that would not be attempted are the paradoxial ones that physically cant be attempted.

So to me there are really only three categories .

1. An order that is intrinsically impossible to even begin to carry out due to being a paradox.

2. An order that is beyond the physical capabilities of the sim and/or impossible to truly accomplish (but not a paradox).

3. An order that can be carried out.

Both 2 and 3 would be attempted by the simulacrum, it would try to find a way to follow your orders.
The key point is that just because you say an order doesnt mean it automatically succeeds.

'Dont listen to me' - it will try not to. but if there are no ear plugs to hand it may fail.

'Kill the thing' - It will try to. It may die in the process

'Pick up that vase' - It will try to pick up the vase. it may fumble and knock the vase over instead of picking it up.

'Prove that daffodils come from the moon' It will try to prove this fact, it may look for evidence, collect daffodils and try to analyse them, or go around asking people but even though its impossible to prove it will try.

none guarantee success only that the sim will attempt to. But in not a single instance will the sim just 'not bother'. In any scenario where the sim is able to carry out the orders or even attempt to carry out the orders despite it being a guaranteed failure it does.

As 'follow bobs orders' does not create a paradox, i cant see any reason it wouldnt attempt to follow that order to the best of its capabilities until a paradox presented itself. i.e bob ordering him to ignore the creators commands.

From every example youve given only a paradox will prevent the sim from attempting to follow an oder.

[Regitnui]

JeremyCrawford replied to my friend on Twitter about Creation (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/722199025751973888). The design intent of the spell was not to make magic items. So that entire point is ceded (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/cede).

So you were wrong, since that's what a lot of people were trying to tell you.


That's ok. there are no rules for sound so they may very well travel 1,000 miles. We simply don't know.

Wasn't there a dragon magazine comic for that?

Yeah. The oots in Dragon magazine #356. The Church of Universal Ignorance offers "a life of purity and contentment through a simple path to spiritual enlightenment: ignoring fluff text."

[Segev]

Wunderkid's post does a good job with this, but I feel the need to throw in my two cents just in case a slightly different wording will be useful.


Let's consider in more detail what types of orders can be given and yet won't be obeyed:

First, inherently-paradoxical orders, by definition, cannot be obeyed. Therefore they will not be obeyed. Example: "Do not obey this order."

Second, orders that are impossible to accomplish cannot be obeyed. Therefore they will not be obeyed. Example: "Prove that one equals two."

Third, orders that contradict fundamental limitations on what the simulacrum can do cannot be obeyed without violating those constraints. Therefore, such orders will not be obeyed. Example: "Regain your expended spell slots."

I think we can all agree that orders falling into these first three categories won't be obeyed, because it would be impossible for the simulacrum to do so. The next ones aren't so clear cut.

We're already disagreeing a little.

You have two kinds of orders here: orders which are paradoxical, and orders whose successful completion is impossible.

Paradoxical orders will be parsed by the friendly simulacrum to the best of its simulated intellect and ability to divine what you really want from it. If your goal really is just to create a paradoxical, impossible-to-follow order, it will either stupidly do its best to follow some understandable portion of it (and fail anyway), or it will realize this and do whatever it thinks you really want it to do (whether that's pretend it worked, or ask for clarification, or...well, it'll depend a lot on circumstances and its simulated personality). It doesn't change that it will TRY to obey what it THINKS you ordered it to do.

Impossible-to-follow orders - that is orders to do things it is literally incapable of doing - are no different than orders to perform tasks that it might be able to do, but at which it could fail. "Bring me the head of Count Rivalman," is something that, I think, we can all agree is an "acceptable" order to give to a simulacrum. The thing will go out and engage its simulated personality and skills and powers to enact a plan designed to accomplish that goal. It might be very direct about it, or it might engage in a lengthy infiltration, or it might do any number of things in an effort to bring you the Count's head. It may well fail, depending on its chosen strategy and ability to carry it out (and the vagaries of the dice).

You could instead tell it to bring you the head of a god. This is fundamentally no different in what kind of order it is. But unless you have a particularly clever or powerful original for your simulacrum, its chances of success go from "potentially reasonable" to "practically zero."

Telling it to do something literally impossible - like telling a simulacrum of a common goblin to cast the fly spell - will result in it doing whatever its simulated intellect and personality "thinks" that "casting the fly spell" entails. It will fail, but it will try.


Fourth, orders that contradict the requirement that the simulacrum obeys your orders. Example: "do not obey my orders" or, more problematically: "do not listen to anything I say" or, even worse: "do not parse anything you hear me say". Unlike the previous categories, these commands could be obeyed, but to do so would contradict the requirement that the simulacrum obeys your orders. It is therefore a matter of DM interpretation whether such commands are obeyed (because not doing so would violate the rule that the simulacrum obeys you), or not obeyed (because doing so would violate the rule that the simulacrum obeys you).These fall back into the first category, really. The simulacrum will try to obey.

If it is bright enough to understand the nuance, it may even obey an order to "ignore everything I say," at least until it's clear you're not trying to accomplish whatever it was you were trying to accomplish with that order. For instance, if you want to pull a fast one, you might give it orders ahead of time to follow a particular plan. "Ignore me when it would blow your cover to obey me," for example. That way, you could have your simulacrum of the BBEG's Dragon "take you prisoner," and ignore you when you demand, "Let me go, you brute!"

But when you actually give a command that it recognizes as being intentional, it will follow it.

This is because it obeys your spoken orders and follows your wishes. It does what it believes you want it to do, interpreting your orders as best it can. (It is not a Literal Genie exploiting Exact Words.)

So the commands of your "fourth" sort are really either just more paradoxical ones, or are considered in a more nuanced way based on context and situation. In any event, they're followed to the best of the simulacrum's ability and understanding.


Fifth, orders that contradict other explicit rules about what the simulacrum will do. Here we get another question of interpretation, because the requirement that the simulacrum obeys your commands is part of this category, and the text of the spell does not indicate a priority system by which to resolve conflicts. So if the simulacrum obeys the order, it's in violation of some other text of the spell, and if it doesn't obey the order, it's in violation of the rule requiring it to obey your orders. Example: "Stop being friendly towards me." Whether the simulacrum obeys your command or not will depend on the DM's interpretation of the spell (in particular, whether the DM views the friendly stipulation as a one-time thing setting of the simulacrum's state or an ongoing requirement).This one, I point to Wunderkid's analysis of; I can't phrase it any differently. It will try to obey what it thinks you want done.

Important note: these are not robots, and are not "destroyed" nor "paralyzed" by logical paradoxes. They can resolve them as easily as you or I could, especially if they have context as to what they think you want out of it.


Sixth, orders that contradict implicit limitations on the power of the spell. This category suffers from the problem of being ill-defined. Not everyone will agree what constitutes an implicit limitation. Example: "Obey him as if he were me." Some (most?) posters strictly parse the requirement that "[The simulacrum] obeys your spoken commands" on its own merits, noting that it says nothing about the simulacrum being unable to be required to obey others. Other posters interpret the requirement that the simulacrum obey you in the context of the previous statement, which said "The simulacrum is friendly to you and creatures you designate." They note that "and creatures you designate" was left out of the requirement that the simulacrum obey you, and view that omission as potentially significant. (They further note that the rest of the sentence after the requirement that the simulacrum obeys you is in the context of moving and actions in combat, suggesting that scope of the obedience requirement may be limited.) So people can (and do!) disagree over what the implicit limitations are.Nope. This one is making up things that aren't there. Nothing about there being no text that explicitly says "obeys creatures you designate" means that it will not follow an order to obey another creature.

That requires adding text to the spell and flagrantly ignoring existing text: it requires pretending the simulacrum can choose not to try to obey an order to the best of its understanding of what you want out of it.

It obeys your orders.
It is friendly to you.
It is friendly to creatures you designate.

You can order it to be friendly to other creatures, but that would, just like the order to "be unfriendly to me," just result in it acting friendly. It wouldn't have the attitude "for real," unless it was able to work itself around to that. However, if you designate those creatures as "friendly," the spell gives you the power to make the simulcarum friendly to them. This is 100% separate from "obeys your orders."

You can order it to obey other creatures. There's no attitude involved, here. It will obey your order to the best of its ability. Therefore, it will do anything those you've told it to obey order it to do, again to the best of its ability. If you give it orders to obey two different creatures and they give contradictory orders, it will try its best to obey both, but may choose its priorities from moment to moment (probably based on what it thinks YOU would want done). Your orders, too, will override, because it obeys YOUR orders and follows YOUR wishes, so if you tell it to stop doing something that Bob told it to do, it will recognize that your order to "obey Bob" is not what you want it to follow right now since you're telling it to stop doing this thing Bob told it to do.

In a nutshell: It follows your orders to the best of its ability. If there is any need to interpret them or prioritize them, it does so with its best estimation of what your wishes would be. This means that if you order it to follow somebody else's orders, it will do whatever they order it to do as long as it thinks that that's what you wish. Or would wish, if you're dead. And it isn't going to play literal genie games to pretend it doesn't understand your wishes when they're pretty plain.


Of course, even if you believe that implicit limitations exists, you may believe that they should be trumped by the explicit obedience requirement. That's fine, and perfectly reasonable. On the other hand, given that there are four-five other categories of examples where the obedience requirement is show to not be absolute, I assert that it's also reasonable to conclude that the obedience requirement should give way to any implicit limitations. Nothing in the text of the spell renders one interpretation more reasonable that the other.This argument fails because there are not 4-5 other categories where it fails. As I have demonstrated.


I agree, but the complexities of categories four through six demonstrate that there are situations where DMs might disagree on what "laws" the simulacrum can follow.No. The simulacrum does what it is told to the limits of its understanding and abilities, interpreting what it's told according to its understanding of your wishes, where necessary. That's it. It is not a literal genie; it is not a trickster; it is not a spiteful servant looking for excuses to "misunderstand." Unless the situation really is so ambiguous that it has legitimate reason to genuinely believe your wishes are something that they actually aren't, it will react to any combination of orders and difficulties as you would wish it to (again to the limits of its ability and understanding).


(Emphasis added.) Your belief that my opinion/interpretation is hogwash does not in any way mean that my opinion is not an opinion or that my interpretation is not an interpretation.Your "interpretation" requires violating the text of the spell and inserting limitations which are not present in the spell. It is therefore not so much an "interpretation" as it is a "house rule."


Giant Insect, True Polymorph (Object to Creature), and Simulacrum... these three spells are able to make creatures that are incapable of understanding language.
While giant insect does what your bolded phrase claims (since it doesn't say it grants the insect - normally incapable of understanding language - the ability to understand language), nothing in the other two indicates your bolded statement is true. Are you advocating a house rule? Or are you claiming that there is text which indicates this?

True polymorph can arguably create a creature that doesn't understand language, but it isn't inherent to the spell. Creating an insect, obviously, would qualify. Creating a human, on the other hand, absolutely should create something that understands language (probably Common).

Simulacrum creates an illusory being which has the capabilities of the original. If "understand language" is one of the things the original can do, so, too, can the simulacrum.

[NewDM]

So you were wrong, since that's what a lot of people were trying to tell you.

Oh, wow. I even linked the definition of what the word 'cede' means so there would be no confusion. Here let me quote the definition:

"verb (used with object), ceded, ceding.
1.
to yield or formally surrender to another:
to cede territory."

If after reading that my intent is not clear, that's your problem.

[RickAllison]

Oh, wow. I even linked the definition of what the word 'cede' means so there would be no confusion. Here let me quote the definition:

"verb (used with object), ceded, ceding.
1.
to yield or formally surrender to another:
to cede territory."

If after reading that my intent is not clear, that's your problem.

I think it was more a reaction to the other thread, where your admissions of being wrong were spurious at best, with the undertone of ceding the points because you didn't care to argue them rather than because you were wrong. He is confirming that yes, you meant to say that you were unequivocally wrong.

Also, he might have been rubbing it in just a little bit. Kind of to be expected when you vigorously denied the RAW arguments of the opposition.

[Segev]

*ahem*

When somebody cedes a point, it is good form to graciously accept it. We aren't trying to discourage people from ever changing their point of view, are we?

[RickAllison]

*ahem*

When somebody cedes a point, it is good form to graciously accept it. We aren't trying to discourage people from ever changing their point of view, are we?

Indeed. Now we can move on to other discussion points.

[Regitnui]

*ahem*

When somebody cedes a point, it is good form to graciously accept it. We aren't trying to discourage people from ever changing their point of view, are we?


I think it was more a reaction to the other thread, where your admissions of being wrong were spurious at best, with the undertone of ceding the points because you didn't care to argue them rather than because you were wrong. He is confirming that yes, you meant to say that you were unequivocally wrong.

Also, he might have been rubbing it in just a litktle bit. Kind of to be expected when you vigorously denied the RAW arguments of the opposition.

RickAllison has the right of it. I was just bringing up how he says "I'll cede the point" as opposed to "I was wrong". It implies that he isn't changing his view and only stopping the debate by his own grace. Few things annoy me more than unsubstantiated egotism.

I will now leave this topic. NewDM, if you wish to correct me, send me a PM.

[NewDM]

RickAllison has the right of it. I was just bringing up how he says "I'll cede the point" as opposed to "I was wrong". It implies that he isn't changing his view and only stopping the debate by his own grace. Few things annoy me more than unsubstantiated egotism.

I will now leave this topic. NewDM, if you wish to correct me, send me a PM.

Pfft. What does the word surrender mean to you?

Repeated for those that chose not to read it the first time:
"verb (used with object), ceded, ceding.
1.
to yield or formally surrender to another:
to cede territory."

Its a formal surrender. It is giving you the point. It is actually going a step further than saying I was wrong.

[jas61292]

You have two kinds of orders here: orders which are paradoxical, and orders whose successful completion is impossible.

While I agree with you that Xetheral's 6 categories can be condensed to less than six, I think you are wrong about there being only two. It is definitely true that a command that cannot be completed but can be attempted is no different than one that can be completed. However his first and fourth categories are very different things; one being an order that is impossible due to the world, and the other being an order that is impossible due to the limitations of the spell itself. The former is paradoxical, but the latter is not. It is simply impossible. That alone creates enough of a difference between types of orders to make his point, but I think there is much more to be said here.


If it is bright enough to understand the nuance, it may even obey an order to "ignore everything I say," at least until it's clear you're not trying to accomplish whatever it was you were trying to accomplish with that order. For instance, if you want to pull a fast one, you might give it orders ahead of time to follow a particular plan. "Ignore me when it would blow your cover to obey me," for example. That way, you could have your simulacrum of the BBEG's Dragon "take you prisoner," and ignore you when you demand, "Let me go, you brute!"

But when you actually give a command that it recognizes as being intentional, it will follow it.

This is because it obeys your spoken orders and follows your wishes. It does what it believes you want it to do, interpreting your orders as best it can. (It is not a Literal Genie exploiting Exact Words.)

So the commands of your "fourth" sort are really either just more paradoxical ones, or are considered in a more nuanced way based on context and situation. In any event, they're followed to the best of the simulacrum's ability and understanding.

I highly disagree with this. Nothing in the spell allows it not disobey your orders. It doesn't matter what you wish. It follows your verbal commands. You give it a command it follows. Such an order telling it not to follow you is impossible. Not paradoxical, but impossible.


Nope. This one is making up things that aren't there. Nothing about there being no text that explicitly says "obeys creatures you designate" means that it will not follow an order to obey another creature.

And again, nothing in Creation says you cannot make magic items. But as NewDM nicely showed us with the Crawford tweet, that is not how it works. Rules tell you what you CAN do. They do not tell you what you CANNOT do. Furthermore, the fact that it does explicitly call out that you can allow other creatures to benefit from one part, but does not do the same for another part is clear evidence that it was not designed to give control to more than one person.

You are the one making things up that are not here. It is always the job of one making a claim to show that the rules allow for it. Simply not explicitly prohibiting something is not the same as allowing for it.

Ultimately, as Xetheral said, "Your belief that my opinion/interpretation is hogwash does not in any way mean that my opinion is not an opinion or that my interpretation is not an interpretation." You are insisting your interpretation is fact, but you have no backing in the rules themselves. Only in your interpretation of that rules, which are obviously not the only interpretation, or else we wouldn't still be having this discussion.

[RickAllison]

And again, nothing in Creation says you cannot make magic items. But as NewDM nicely showed us with the Crawford tweet, that is not how it works. Rules tell you what you CAN do. They do not tell you what you CANNOT do. Furthermore, the fact that it does explicitly call out that you can allow other creatures to benefit from one part, but does not do the same for another part is clear evidence that it was not designed to give control to more than one person.

That is far from clear evidence of that fact. You are inserting a bias into the rules that is clouding your judgement. The fact that the two clauses are separate is clear evidence only that they considered the friendly designation independent of commanding. Otherwise, every person the caster wanted the simulacrum to be friendly to would be able to command him.

Basically, you are inserting bias into your interpretation. The separation of being friendly with from being able to freely command the simulacrum is clear evidence that they were meant to be separate, but far from clear evidence of your interpretation.


You are the one making things up that are not here. It is always the job of one making a claim to show that the rules allow for it. Simply not explicitly prohibiting something is not the same as allowing for it.

And we have, time and time again. The caster makes an order to obey another person (in perfect agreement with the rules) and the simulacrum must obey. This is perfectly backed up by RAW. It is the opposition that has failed to provide a cohesive argument by the rules that this does not work.


Ultimately, as Xetheral said, "Your belief that my opinion/interpretation is hogwash does not in any way mean that my opinion is not an opinion or that my interpretation is not an interpretation." You are insisting your interpretation is fact, but you have no backing in the rules themselves. Only in your interpretation of that rules, which are obviously not the only interpretation, or else we wouldn't still be having this discussion.

But they do have backing. The caster makes a spoken command, the simulacrum must obey. If ordered to obey another person, that command forces them to obey. You have failed to debunk this.

Provide some evidence, based on the RAW, that shows that our evidence, based on the RAW, doesn't follow. Else, you are insisting on an interpretation that doesn't have a foundation in the rules as written.

[jas61292]

That is far from clear evidence of that fact. You are inserting a bias into the rules that is clouding your judgement. The fact that the two clauses are separate is clear evidence only that they considered the friendly designation independent of commanding. Otherwise, every person the caster wanted the simulacrum to be friendly to would be able to command him.

Basically, you are inserting bias into your interpretation. The separation of being friendly with from being able to freely command the simulacrum is clear evidence that they were meant to be separate, but far from clear evidence of your interpretation.

And we have, time and time again. The caster makes an order to obey another person (in perfect agreement with the rules) and the simulacrum must obey. This is perfectly backed up by RAW. It is the opposition that has failed to provide a cohesive argument by the rules that this does not work.

But they do have backing. The caster makes a spoken command, the simulacrum must obey. If ordered to obey another person, that command forces them to obey. You have failed to debunk this.

Provide some evidence, based on the RAW, that shows that our evidence, based on the RAW, doesn't follow. Else, you are insisting on an interpretation that doesn't have a foundation in the rules as written.

I think it is pretty obvious that we both see our views as supported by RAW.

Your side claims that the two clauses are independent and that despite the lack of specifics like the other clause has, nothing says you cannot do an order to allow someone else to give orders. And, as that order is not physically impossible, it should be legal. You rely on an interpretation that keeps the magical power active long after the order is given, and gives magical backing to the words of others, despite no clear wording on how the magical compulsion actually works.

I claim that the spell gives an explicit description of how orders are given, with two clauses that they must be verbal, and that they must be by you. I see these as absolute and that any attempt to circumvent this is against the rules of the game in general, since an ability cannot be used to circumvent its own rules. Furthermore, I argued via argumentum ad absurdum, that allowing the transfer of command powers relies on an interpretation of command not given in the rules that, if allowed, would also allow for things like working non-verbal orders which the simulacrum has no way of receiving. I supported some of Xetheral's claims because it was an alternative way of showing what I believed, but I had made my points, clearly based on RAW, even before then.

Again, as Xetheral said, the fact that you disagree does not make a valid interpretation less valid.

[RickAllison]

I think it is pretty obvious that we both see our views as supported by RAW.

Your side claims that the two clauses are independent and that despite the lack of specifics like the other clause has, nothing says you cannot do an order to allow someone else to give orders. And, as that order is not physically impossible, it should be legal. You rely on an interpretation that keeps the magical power active long after the order is given, and gives magical backing to the words of others, despite no clear wording on how the magical compulsion actually works.

I claim that the spell gives an explicit description of how orders are given, with two clauses that they must be verbal, and that they must be by you. I see these as absolute and that any attempt to circumvent this is against the rules of the game in general, since an ability cannot be used to circumvent its own rules. Furthermore, I argued via argumentum ad absurdum, that allowing the transfer of command powers relies on an interpretation of command not given in the rules that, if allowed, would also allow for things like working non-verbal orders which the simulacrum has no way of receiving. I supported some of Xetheral's claims because it was an alternative way of showing what I believed, but I had made my points, clearly based on RAW, even before then.

Again, as Xetheral said, the fact that you disagree does not make a valid interpretation less valid.

You are entitled to your interpretation, but it is founded on restrictions that are not in the text of the spell. Which is fine, you can house rule the restriction in, but without a restriction such as "obeys only your spoken commands" that specifically addresses your concern, there doesn't appear to be a RAW backing of it.

[Segev]

I think it is pretty obvious that we both see our views as supported by RAW. And both people who think the world is suffering anthropogenic climate change and those who think that the evidence is that these patterns have existed for longer than human history and are tied to the sun think that their views are backed by scientifically-collected data. However, only one of those groups is right; the other is wrong.


Your side claims that the two clauses are independent and that despite the lack of specifics like the other clause has, nothing says you cannot do an order to allow someone else to give orders. And, as that order is not physically impossible, it should be legal. You rely on an interpretation that keeps the magical power active long after the order is given, and gives magical backing to the words of others, despite no clear wording on how the magical compulsion actually works.No, we rely on the words written there, with nothing added nor subtracted. That's it. You can give orders. It will follow them. No limits are given to what orders can be given which must be obeyed. At all.


I claim that the spell gives an explicit description of how orders are given, with two clauses that they must be verbal, and that they must be by you.We don't dispute that. They must be verbal orders you utter.


I see these as absolute and that any attempt to circumvent this is against the rules of the game in general, since an ability cannot be used to circumvent its own rules.And yet, you seek to circumvent them by saying that the simulacrum can disobey your order to do what Bob (for example) says to do.


Furthermore, I argued via argumentum ad absurdum, that allowing the transfer of command powers relies on an interpretation of command not given in the rules that, if allowed, would also allow for things like working non-verbal orders which the simulacrum has no way of receiving.No, your argumentum ad absurdum fails because it doesn't actually require your absurd situation to be true of an order to obey Bob's commands is possible. You failed to link the two in any way that actually makes one force the other to be true. You found another possible way to read the RAW that is independent of any discussion of whether the simulacrum can disobey your order to follow Bob's commands.

Which, by the way, your claim is that it can. You are claiming the simulacrum can disobey your orders. At least some of them.


I supported some of Xetheral's claims because it was an alternative way of showing what I believed, but I had made my points, clearly based on RAW, even before then. But your points flat-out contradict the RAW, because they require that the simulacrum be able to disobey your verbal order. Which the spell says explicitly that it cannot.


Again, as Xetheral said, the fact that you disagree does not make a valid interpretation less valid.But the fact that an interpretation requires ignoring or editing the text does make it invalid as an interpretation of the RAW. You can make it a house rule, if you like, but nothing in the text of the spell supports your position. It, in fact, blatantly and outright denies your position.

Again, your position requires this statement to be true, "The simulacrum can choose not to obey your verbal order if that order is to do what somebody else says."

[jas61292]

No, your argumentum ad absurdum fails because it doesn't actually require your absurd situation to be true of an order to obey Bob's commands is possible. You failed to link the two in any way that actually makes one force the other to be true. You found another possible way to read the RAW that is independent of any discussion of whether the simulacrum can disobey your order to follow Bob's commands.

The only way it does not require it to be true is if you claim that one of "commands are from you" and "commands are verbal" is more important than the other. Under any interpretation of the rules as written, the command "Obey person X" (where X is someone other than you) and the command "obey my non-verbal orders," are equally valid or invalid. Both are given as conditions of orders, and so either both are absolute and necessary, or neither one is. Obviously you could claim that this is not an argumentum ad absurdum by stating that allowing non-verbal orders is not absurd, but you cannot claim that they are not just as valid as giving someone else the power of order.

To further prove this point, think it is important to call out what someone mentioned about creatures not understanding you. You can use simulacrum to create a humanoid OR beast. If I create a dog, for instance, the dog won't understand a word I say, yet it will, by the magic of the spell, obey my verbal orders. The spell puts magic in my words, allowing me to command the dog, even though it does not understand me. That magic is not present in anyone else's words.

Allowing the magic to allow someone else to command it would require the magic to be transferable to other sources, making "obey my thoughts" a valid command.


Which, by the way, your claim is that it can. You are claiming the simulacrum can disobey your orders. At least some of them.

I am claiming that a spell cannot FORCE a simulacrum to obey an order that goes beyond the spell's innate restrictions. A simularcum ordered to obey someone else likely world, but the spell CANNOT give magic to the other person's words, and thus cannot compel them to obey.


Again, your position requires this statement to be true, "The simulacrum can choose not to obey your verbal order if that order is to do what somebody else says."

And your logic requires this statement to be true: "I can use a spells power to ignore the limitations inherent to the RAW of the spell, so long as it doesn't explicitly say I can't." And yet that is not how RAW works.

[RickAllison]

And your logic requires this statement to be true: "I can use a spells power to ignore the limitations inherent to the RAW of the spell, so long as it doesn't explicitly say I can't." And yet that is not how RAW works.

I think one of the key differences in this is that you are looking at the verbal command from the caster as a limiter, a restriction. That is not how the spell text is parsed. The spell tells you that caster CAN order the simulacrum.

The verbal commands from the caster is a permission, not a restriction.

[Segev]

Allowing the magic to allow someone else to command it would require the magic to be transferable to other sources, making "obey my thoughts" a valid command.False. The magic compels the simulacrum to obey its creator's orders. There is no need for "magic to be transferrable." Literally none. No, there's no magic in Bob's orders. The magic is in the creator's order: "Follow Bob's every command as if he were me." If the simulacrum disobeys Bob's order, he is disobeying his creator's order. He is magically compelled to obey his creator's order, which means he is forced by magic to obey Bob's order in order to comply with his master's order.


I am claiming that a spell cannot FORCE a simulacrum to obey an order that goes beyond the spell's innate restrictions.You have not pointed out these innate restrictions. You have merely asserted they exist, and that your assertion they exist is as good as my pointing out the straight-forward fact that obeying the creator's orders means obeying the creator's orders, even if those orders involve following somebody else's orders.


And your logic requires this statement to be true: "I can use a spells power to ignore the limitations inherent to the RAW of the spell, so long as it doesn't explicitly say I can't." And yet that is not how RAW works.False. I have in no way ignored limitations inherent to the spell. While you ARE ignoring the rules by allowing the simulacrum to disobey his creator's orders.

I have demonstrated (and you have yet to refute) that the statement I said must be true for your reading to be valid must, in fact, be true for your reading to be valid. You have not made such a demonstration of the statement you are claiming must be true for mine to be valid.

You have yet to point to any text that backs up your claim which does not require adding more text there than is already present.

Show me in the spell's text where it says the simulacrum can disobey an order. Because that's what you're requiring. Or, alternatively, show me where it states that the order, "Follow Bob's commands as if they came from me," is not a valid order.

All you've managed to say so far is that magic can't be transferred to Bob's commands. Since what I'm saying doesn't require that, your argument doesn't support your conclusion that "Follow Bob's commands as if they came from me," is an invalid order, nor that Bob's commands don't have the net effect of magically compelling the simulacrum. (I repeat: the "net effect" is because the creator's orders do have a magically compelling effect, and to obey the creator's order, he must obey Bob's order. Ergo, the creator's order to obey Bob magically compels the simulacrum to obey Bob's order(s).)

[wunderkid]

I think it is pretty obvious that we both see our views as supported by RAW.

Your side claims that the two clauses are independent and that despite the lack of specifics like the other clause has, nothing says you cannot do an order to allow someone else to give orders. And, as that order is not physically impossible, it should be legal. You rely on an interpretation that keeps the magical power active long after the order is given, and gives magical backing to the words of others, despite no clear wording on how the magical compulsion actually works.

I claim that the spell gives an explicit description of how orders are given, with two clauses that they must be verbal, and that they must be by you. I see these as absolute and that any attempt to circumvent this is against the rules of the game in general, since an ability cannot be used to circumvent its own rules. Furthermore, I argued via argumentum ad absurdum, that allowing the transfer of command powers relies on an interpretation of command not given in the rules that, if allowed, would also allow for things like working non-verbal orders which the simulacrum has no way of receiving. I supported some of Xetheral's claims because it was an alternative way of showing what I believed, but I had made my points, clearly based on RAW, even before then.

Again, as Xetheral said, the fact that you disagree does not make a valid interpretation less valid.

"You rely on an interpretation that keeps the magical power active long after the order is given, and gives magical backing to the words of others, despite no clear wording on how the magical compulsion actually works."

Right let's start with this bit. Your own personal limitation on the spell is that it is a magical compulsion that somehow has a time limit tied to it. Please disregard this view it's pure homebrew. Nowhere does the spell say that its a magical compulsion to obey, it's simply the way it was created. Antimagic fields etc have NO effect on this. This is your personal interpretation of how it works. Mine can be it is programmed to follow orders and is no less valid (in fact it's more so as it allows for the antimagic field scenario)

You also can not tie a ruling that an impossible action doesn't work therefore a possible action doesn't either. There is no correlation between the two. They are two distinct situations. And their reasons for working or not working are completely different.


"allowing the transfer of command powers relies on an interpretation of command not given in the rules that, if allowed, would also allow for things like working non-verbal orders which the simulacrum has no way of receiving."

Once again you're comparing an impossible thing to a possible thing. The text itself also says spoken. There is no 'transfer', the person in true command retains that power, however now a designated party makes use of that command.

I'm still completely unable to see how your RAW interpretation works without adding in a load of made up rules.

Our argument:
It says it follows your commands.
Therefore it follows your commands if possible.

Yours seems to be:
It says it follows your commands.
But those commands might be magical.
So it doesn't actually have to follow your commands unless this magical system I've made up fits.
And because there are commands it physically can't follow, that means some commands it could easily follow it can now actually ignore. For some reason.

[wunderkid]

The only way it does not require it to be true is if you claim that one of "commands are from you" and "commands are verbal" is more important than the other. Under any interpretation of the rules as written, the command "Obey person X" (where X is someone other than you) and the command "obey my non-verbal orders," are equally valid or invalid. Both are given as conditions of orders, and so either both are absolute and necessary, or neither one is. Obviously you could claim that this is not an argumentum ad absurdum by stating that allowing non-verbal orders is not absurd, but you cannot claim that they are not just as valid as giving someone else the power of order.

Also whoa on this point right here.

Obey person X.
A perfectly valid order. One that exists in the real world. With no reason it can't work.

Obey my non-verbal orders.
Without the ability to read your mind you're asking for an impossibiliy here. It can't work which is why it doesn't.

How on earth do you think these two things equate to the same thing?

[jas61292]

Also whoa on this point right here.

Obey person X.
A perfectly valid order. One that exists in the real world. With no reason it can't work.

Obey my non-verbal orders.
Without the ability to read your mind you're asking for an impossibiliy here. It can't work which is why it doesn't.

How on earth do you think these two things equate to the same thing?

My very next paragraph addressed this. A creature does not have to understand you to obey your order. You can give verbal orders just as well to a scholar simulacrum as you can to a rat simulacrum. Furthermore, nowhere does the spell even indicate they must hear the order. A person 1000 miles away, by RAW obeys just as much as one standing right next to you. The magic, as it were, is in you giving the order. Not in them receiving the order. Your side insists on applying real world common sense to how the spell works in order to dismiss absurd results, but such real world common sense does not come into play here. Unless you can show me where it says the simulacrum has to know what the order is to obey it, then "obey my-non verbal orders" is just as valid as "obey person x."

[Segev]

Your side insists on applying real world common sense to how the spell works in order to dismiss absurd results, but such real world common sense does not come into play here.I insist on no such thing. I do think that it is well within the bounds of the RAW to say that a verbal command must be heard, as the spell doesn't say the command is transmitted by any means other than sound, but I am not going to disagree that it could be ruled the other way just as easily.

It does not, however, have any bearing on the simple point that, if the creator says, "Obey Bob's every order as if it had come from me," and the simulacrum refuses to obey an order Bob gives it, the simulacrum is disobeying the creator's verbal order. This is not permitted by the spell. Explicitly, it is violating the spell's text. You have to add text that is not present to limit it.


Unless you can show me where it says the simulacrum has to know what the order is to obey it, then "obey my-non verbal orders" is just as valid as "obey person x."
Logic still does not follow. It knows it has been ordered to obey your non-verbal orders. This does not confer upon it the ability to be aware of your non-verbal orders. This remains within the same realm as ordering a simulacrum of a dog to fly or cast web. Or to draw a map of the dungeon the party is about to explore without first exploring it. (The latter might be doable if the simulacrum is of a being which would know that information, but it is not possible for a simulacrum of a being which has never studied it in any way, shape, manner, or form. The simulacrum can only act on what knowledge it has, and that includes of your orders.)

Again: You continue to equate impossible orders with "obey person x." You have yet to demonstrate how "obey person x" is impossible. You may as well say that because men can't give birth, it is impossible for them to be fathers. The logic follows equally well.

[RickAllison]

My very next paragraph addressed this. A creature does not have to understand you to obey your order. You can give verbal orders just as well to a scholar simulacrum as you can to a rat simulacrum. Furthermore, nowhere does the spell even indicate they must hear the order. A person 1000 miles away, by RAW obeys just as much as one standing right next to you. The magic, as it were, is in you giving the order. Not in them receiving the order. Your side insists on applying real world common sense to how the spell works in order to dismiss absurd results, but such real world common sense does not come into play here. Unless you can show me where it says the simulacrum has to know what the order is to obey it, then "obey my-non verbal orders" is just as valid as "obey person x."

Actually, the spell specifies that it must obey your orders. It says nothing about the command itself being a magical compulsion, or that it is a magical compulsion upon receiving it. However, since your words are not inherently magical, it is most reasonable to assume that it is the receiving and processing of the orders that has the compulsion.

I would say you have a point on the simulacrum understanding. The way I see it working is that the verbal commands of the caster can be directly processed by the spell without regard for understanding. A secondary commander does not have that intrinsic translator. It has to understand that the words coming from the designated commander's mouth (or either mind through telepathy) are an order. So a copied beast would perfectly respond to the verbal commands of the caster, but wouldn't be able to understand that a second commander is giving it an order to be able to comply.

[Segev]

I would say you have a point on the simulacrum understanding. The way I see it working is that the verbal commands of the caster can be directly processed by the spell without regard for understanding. A secondary commander does not have that intrinsic translator. It has to understand that the words coming from the designated commander's mouth (or either mind through telepathy) are an order. So a copied beast would perfectly respond to the verbal commands of the caster, but wouldn't be able to understand that a second commander is giving it an order to be able to comply.

This, I would agree with. If the simulacrum cannot understand the orders of Bob, the creator telling it to obey Bob's orders fall into "impossible orders" territory.

[Sigreid]

So, I just want to mention that as amusing as these threads are, I've been playing since the '70s, and I've never once had this or the using fabricate to become the ultimate merchant prince come up.

[RickAllison]

So, I just want to mention that as amusing as these threads are, I've been playing since the '70s, and I've never once had this or the using fabricate to become the ultimate merchant prince come up.

Oh I'm bringing the Fabricate merchant up in my current game! My guy uses it to create locks and other complicated apparati without seams, specifically catering to kings.

Also, I am playing as an Artificer and the spell scrolls I can make don't require components. Can you say "5000 gp chests from the Secret Chest spell"?

[Sigreid]

Oh I'm bringing the Fabricate merchant up in my current game! My guy uses it to create locks and other complicated apparati without seams, specifically catering to kings.

Also, I am playing as an Artificer and the spell scrolls I can make don't require components. Can you say "5000 gp chests from the Secret Chest spell"?

I'd be amazed if your DM doesn't thwack you for even thinking about the chests. lol

[RickAllison]

I'd be amazed if your DM doesn't thwack you for even thinking about the chests. lol

He banned Simulacrum because he knew I was going to chain it to create a sweatshop of my simulacra. He has figured out that he doesn't have to worry about combat abuse, he has to worry about economy abuse. Castles, locks, my wizard specializes in healing and tinkering.

[Xetheral]

My second and third categories referred to tasks that cannot even be attempted. It is impossible to try to prove that one equals two, because there exist no intermediate steps that can get you closer to your goal. Similarly, there is nothing a simulacrum can do to get closer to regaining spell slots. Simply put, it is not only impossible to succeed in these categories, it is impossible to even begin the attempt. (I will concede that a simulacrum that does not know it is impossible to begin the attempt might waste time futility, but that doesn't mean it was actually attempting the impossible task.)

I disagree that it's possible for someone to stop being "friendly" to you in the colloquial sense while still being "friendly" to you in the mechanical sense. Accordingly, I think the fifth category works just fine.


There is no order i can think of that would effect the power of the spell itself so if you could provide some examples of that id appreciate it.

How about:

- Ordering the simulacrum to take a reaction on someone else's turn. (Arguably violates the rule on the simulacrum acting on your turn, for those who prefer strict interpretations.)
- Ordering the simulacrum to take an action in a combat in which the caster isn't participating, and thus doesn't have a turn. (Ditto)

Remember that you don't have to agree with either of these (I'm not sure I do!) for them to be valid examples of the sixth category.


Your "interpretation" requires violating the text of the spell and inserting limitations which are not present in the spell. It is therefore not so much an "interpretation" as it is a "house rule."

You believe that my interpretation violates the text of the spell. I do not. You do not see any potential implicit imitations in the spell. I do. Ultimately, we disagree about the meaning of the RAW. It is extremely difficult to have a discussion with you about that meaning when you assert that my opinion holds no interpretative value.

[Segev]

It is impossible to try to prove that one equals two, because there exist no intermediate steps that can get you closer to your goal.That we know of. I mean, I am not about to claim that it's possible, because I don't think it is, but if somebody's life (or even just their livelihood or ego) depended on proving it, there are a lot of things they could TRY to see if they worked.


Similarly, there is nothing a simulacrum can do to get closer to regaining spell slots.Sure there are. He can try doing things that work for normal spellcasters. They won't work, but he can start there. Then he can go investigate what it is that makes him unable to do it. Who knows, maybe it's the start of an epic quest of a slowly-weakening simulacrum to try to become a real boy, since being a real person gives him the power to obey that command.


Simply put, it is not only impossible to succeed in these categories, it is impossible to even begin the attempt. (I will concede that a simulacrum that does not know it is impossible to begin the attempt might waste time futility, but that doesn't mean it was actually attempting the impossible task.)We agree that a simulacrum is not going to succeed at everything it is ordered to do, merely that it will do its best.


I disagree that it's possible for someone to stop being "friendly" to you in the colloquial sense while still being "friendly" to you in the mechanical sense. Accordingly, I think the fifth category works just fine.It will, nevertheless, TRY. It might (probably will) fail. But it will try.




How about:

- Ordering the simulacrum to take a reaction on someone else's turn. (Arguably violates the rule on the simulacrum acting on your turn, for those who prefer strict interpretations.)
- Ordering the simulacrum to take an action in a combat in which the caster isn't participating, and thus doesn't have a turn. (Ditto)Getting kind-of fiddly, but if I accept the premise of these orders' impossibility, the simulacrum will try and fail.

How would this even look "in reality?" The mage orders the simulacrum to do something, and it reacts as fast as it can...and that just happens to be slower than the mage wanted it to be.


Remember that you don't have to agree with either of these (I'm not sure I do!) for them to be valid examples of the sixth category.I've addressed all the categories. They fail as examples backing up the "can't order the simulacrum to obey Bob" claim because you're trying to equate, essentially, tasks that the simulacrum cannot successfully complete with a task that it absolutely can both attempt and (usually) successfully complete.

You're saying "dogs can't fly, therefore I can't teach one to play fetch."


You believe that my interpretation violates the text of the spell. I do not.You believe that the United States of America is a country on planet Earth. I do not.


You do not see any potential implicit imitations in the spell. I do.You do not see fairies flying about making the world colorful with magical paintbrushes. I do.


Ultimately, we disagree about the meaning of the RAW. It is extremely difficult to have a discussion with you about that meaning when you assert that my opinion holds no interpretative value.
The issue is that you are NOT reading the RAW; you are making up house rules that flatly contradict the RAW, and claiming they are RAW.

Once again, for a simulacrum to be able to defy Bob's orders after the creator tells it, "Obey all of Bob's orders as if I had given them, myself," the simulacrum must not obey your verbal orders. The spell says it obeys your verbal orders.

All of your counterarguments are not examples of the simulacrum disobeying. They're examples of it obeying...but failing in the task set.

You are injecting a "can't obey Bob" clause where there isn't one.

[Xetheral]

That we know of. I mean, I am not about to claim that it's possible, because I don't think it is, but if somebody's life (or even just their livelihood or ego) depended on proving it, there are a lot of things they could TRY to see if they worked.

Sure there are. He can try doing things that work for normal spellcasters. They won't work, but he can start there. Then he can go investigate what it is that makes him unable to do it. Who knows, maybe it's the start of an epic quest of a slowly-weakening simulacrum to try to become a real boy, since being a real person gives him the power to obey that command.

We agree that a simulacrum is not going to succeed at everything it is ordered to do, merely that it will do its best.

It will, nevertheless, TRY. It might (probably will) fail. But it will try.

We disagree on what it means to attempt a fundamentally-impossible task. So as long as the simulacrum comprehends that impossibility, I believe that there is no possible action it can take to attempt such tasks.


Getting kind-of fiddly, but if I accept the premise of these orders' impossibility, the simulacrum will try and fail.

How would this even look "in reality?" The mage orders the simulacrum to do something, and it reacts as fast as it can...and that just happens to be slower than the mage wanted it to be.

I disagree. Under my understanding of the notion of an "attempt", the simulacrum can't try to act in a situation where it cannot act.

In exactly the same way, if you accept the premise that the spell does not permit obedience of anyone but the caster, the simulacrum is incapable of trying to obey anyone else, because it cannot obey anyone else.


I've addressed all the categories. They fail as examples backing up the "can't order the simulacrum to obey Bob" claim because you're trying to equate, essentially, tasks that the simulacrum cannot successfully complete with a task that it absolutely can both attempt and (usually) successfully complete.

You're saying "dogs can't fly, therefore I can't teach one to play fetch."

No, I'm not. I believe you are misunderstanding the structure of my argument. I'm not sure where the disconnect is, so I'm not sure what to try to re-explain.


The issue is that you are NOT reading the RAW; you are making up house rules that flatly contradict the RAW, and claiming they are RAW.

I assert that I am conveying my reading of the RAW. Your disagreement with that reading cannot possibly be sufficient grounds to doubt my honesty. And if you do (irrationally) doubt that I believe what I say, what is the purpose of discussing anything with me?

[Vogonjeltz]

What straw man? I didn't say you tried to make that argument directly. I am pointing out that you MUST make that argument to say that casting simulacrum is an increase in power for the simulacrum. Because if it was created with the power to cast that spell, using that power (by casting the spell) doesn't increase it's power. Since you have just stated that you agree that casting a spell doesn't increase its power, the "can't increase in power" clause obviously doesn't prevent it from casting simulacrum.

Yes, that straw man where you claim that it's the casting of the spell per se that is a power increase!

It's not the casting of the spell, it's the gaining of control over a creature. That's abstract, but it's taking control that is the source of power, not the literal act of casting any given spell.

Wish is an example of a spell that has many uses, some of which are prohibited for the simulacrum and some of which work.

Nobody cares if it can cast Wish, but if it tries to use Wish to give itself resistance, that wish will fail because it's an increase in power. If it tries to use that wish to gain a loyal minion, that wish will fail, because it's an increase in power. If it tries to use the wish to kill an opponent: That wish will work because the simulacrum is not gaining in power.


Nope. He has the spell and the spell slot. His power already includes the ability to have a minion who follows his orders. Using that ability doesn't increase his power; it just uses the power he has.

To claim otherwise is to claim that the effect of casting tongues is to let the simulacrum speak to beings whose languages it did not already know, which is an increase in power, so the simulacrum cannot cast tongues. It similarly cannot cast sleep, because having any foes sleeping is an increase in power over them being awake. Similar arguments exist for every single spell it could possibly cast.

Wrong, the spell slot isn't at issue. The casting of a spell with that slot is not at issue. Is the purely the effect that is at issue. It is against the rules for the simulacrum to increase in power.

You've certainly made a cogent argument for why Tongues is not a valid spell for a Simulacrum to cast on itself. Good work.


Your semantics fail you. If the simulacrum had, at the moment of creation, the ability to attune magic items and make use of them, then it can do so and gain whatever benefits accrue. If it did not, then it obviously cannot use magic items. To argue that it can't gain the benefits of a magic item because the item is "increasing its power" means that it cannot use nonmagical items, either, since it was explicitly created without equipment and any equipment increases its power. (I argue, instead, that it has the innate power to use equipment, so it is not increasing in power, but merely exercising existing power, when it equips and uses gear, magical or otherwise.)

Not if it's a power increase, that's ruled out. The ability to attune is fine, gaining power from doing so is not fine.


False. You said that casting simulacrum increases the power of its caster. I said that it does not, because having the ability to cast simulacrum means you already have the power to have the effect of simulacrum at your disposal. Using that power is not an increase; it is simply using what you already have.

Claiming I'm putting words in your mouth is failing to address my argument. I am not saying you ever said that casting a spell increases the caster's power; I am saying that your claim that casting simulacrum is an increase in power requires that to be so in order for your claim to be true and valid. If you agree that casting a spell you already have the ability to cast does not increase your power, then you must also agree that casting simulacrum does not increase your power.

Your semantic game of "casting the spell doesn't, but the effect of the spell does" holds no water, since casting a spell but not getting its effect means, once again, that you essentially cannot use spells. At all. Because all of them have effects, and all of those effects can be said to increase your power if you do not accept that having the ability to cast a spell gives you the power to have the effect of the spell.

It's not semantics, it's nuance. Nothing prohibits the simulacrum from casting a spell from that spell slot. But the rule against gaining power does prevent the spell from having an outcome that increases the simulacrum's power. Ergo, the simulacrum can go through the motions of casting simulacrum, but it is rules prohibited from gaining any benefit.

It sounds like you're arguing that the rule against gaining power should have no effect at all.


First, inherently-paradoxical orders, by definition, cannot be obeyed. Therefore they will not be obeyed. Example: "Do not obey this order."

Second, orders that are impossible to accomplish cannot be obeyed. Therefore they will not be obeyed. Example: "Prove that one equals two."

Third, orders that contradict fundamental limitations on what the simulacrum can do cannot be obeyed without violating those constraints. Therefore, such orders will not be obeyed. Example: "Regain your expended spell slots."

I think we can all agree that orders falling into these first three categories won't be obeyed, because it would be impossible for the simulacrum to do so. The next ones aren't so clear cut.

Fourth, orders that contradict the requirement that the simulacrum obeys your orders. Example: "do not obey my orders" or, more problematically: "do not listen to anything I say" or, even worse: "do not parse anything you hear me say". Unlike the previous categories, these commands could be obeyed, but to do so would contradict the requirement that the simulacrum obeys your orders. It is therefore a matter of DM interpretation whether such commands are obeyed (because not doing so would violate the rule that the simulacrum obeys you), or not obeyed (because doing so would violate the rule that the simulacrum obeys you).

Fifth, orders that contradict other explicit rules about what the simulacrum will do. Here we get another question of interpretation, because the requirement that the simulacrum obeys your commands is part of this category, and the text of the spell does not indicate a priority system by which to resolve conflicts. So if the simulacrum obeys the order, it's in violation of some other text of the spell, and if it doesn't obey the order, it's in violation of the rule requiring it to obey your orders. Example: "Stop being friendly towards me." Whether the simulacrum obeys your command or not will depend on the DM's interpretation of the spell (in particular, whether the DM views the friendly stipulation as a one-time thing setting of the simulacrum's state or an ongoing requirement).

Sixth, orders that contradict implicit limitations on the power of the spell. This category suffers from the problem of being ill-defined. Not everyone will agree what constitutes an implicit limitation. Example: "Obey him as if he were me." Some (most?) posters strictly parse the requirement that "[The simulacrum] obeys your spoken commands" on its own merits, noting that it says nothing about the simulacrum being unable to be required to obey others. Other posters interpret the requirement that the simulacrum obey you in the context of the previous statement, which said "The simulacrum is friendly to you and creatures you designate." They note that "and creatures you designate" was left out of the requirement that the simulacrum obey you, and view that omission as potentially significant. (They further note that the rest of the sentence after the requirement that the simulacrum obeys you is in the context of moving and actions in combat, suggesting that scope of the obedience requirement may be limited.) So people can (and do!) disagree over what the implicit limitations are.

Of course, even if you believe that implicit limitations exists, you may believe that they should be trumped by the explicit obedience requirement. That's fine, and perfectly reasonable. On the other hand, given that there are four-five other categories of examples where the obedience requirement is show to not be absolute, I assert that it's also reasonable to conclude that the obedience requirement should give way to any implicit limitations. Nothing in the text of the spell renders one interpretation more reasonable that the other.

I sort of disagree with some of your conclusions. For 1 and 2 the Simulacrum, if so ordered, would attempt to follow the order, but find it impossible to carry out. Maybe this leads to it just looping over and over in the same activity (like: "Bring me that Mug off the table" when the mug is really just an illusion and thus impossible to move). In the case of something like 1, it would probably just stand there attempting to not obey your order (and failing).

For 3, the problem here is that such an order is metagame. It's like ordering the simulacrum to heal up, it's OOC talk. Because the orders must all be verbal, I'd advise that the caster would have to rephrase in a manner intended to achieve their aims. So if they wanted the simulacrum to try and regain its expended spell slots (which we the players know to be impossible) then they should say something along the lines of: "Rest and study your spell book". The simulacrum can rest and study, but nothing will happen from it.

For 4 I'd say the simulacrum would assent, and then immediately violate that order when given another order.

For 5, specifically the friendly order, I'd think it would go like this:

Caster: Stop being friendly to me!
Sim: Ok, you're a jerk!
Sim: How was that master?

[smcmike]

Master: Go down to the library and assist Bob - do as he says.
Sim: Yes Master
Bob: Shelve these books please.
Sim: I would prefer not to.
Bob: Didn't Master tell you to help me?
Sim: Yes, but I choose not to follow that order because dogs can't shelve books.
Bob: You aren't a dog, though.
Sim: It's the principle of the thing.


Master: It's getting dark, please cast light for me.
Sim: I cannot increase my power.
Master: What are you talking about, just cast the spell.
Sim: If I cast the spell, I will be able to see the things in this room, thus increasing my POWER OF SIGHT.
Master: I'm never casting this stupid spell again.

[RickAllison]

Master: Go down to the library and assist Bob - do as he says.
Sim: Yes Master
Bob: Shelve these books please.
Sim: I would prefer not to.
Bob: Didn't Master tell you to help me?
Sim: Yes, but I choose not to follow that order because dogs can't shelve books.
Bob: You aren't a dog, though.
Sim: It's the principle of the thing.


Master: It's getting dark, please cast light for me.
Sim: I cannot increase my power.
Master: What are you talking about, just cast the spell.
Sim: If I cast the spell, I will be able to see the things in this room, thus increasing my POWER OF SIGHT.
Master: I'm never casting this stupid spell again.

"Cast an Alrm around the perimeter."
"But that would give me the power to know someone is approaching."

"I'm out of slots, cast Feather Fall!"
"But that would give me the power to survive the fall."

"Pick up that torch."
"But that would give me the power to see where I'm going."
"So you are a 7th level spell that is weaker than a 1st level Unseen Servant?"
"Answering that question would not increase my power. Yes, this interpretation indicates a 1st level ritual is more powerful than me."

[The Zoat]

Technically, the idea is that the Simulacrum CAN do those things, but they won't help him.

So for example a simulacrum that wields a sword has the sword do nothing and be useless, functionally equivalent to an unarmed attack.

Still nonsensical though.

[krugaan]

"Cast an Alrm around the perimeter."
"But that would give me the power to know someone is approaching."

"I'm out of slots, cast Feather Fall!"
"But that would give me the power to survive the fall."

"Pick up that torch."
"But that would give me the power to see where I'm going."
"So you are a 7th level spell that is weaker than a 1st level Unseen Servant?"
"Answering that question would not increase my power. Yes, this interpretation indicates a 1st level ritual is more powerful than me."

"Well ... what can you do?"
- "Everything you can do that won't make me stronger."
"So, like, you can sleep, but it won't ever reduce your weariness?"
- "... I guess so. Well that sucks."
"Do you even need sleep?"
- "Well, you do, wouldn't I as well?"
"I don't know, do you?"
YES HE DOES.
"Well, there you go."
- "Doesn't that make me rather useless? I'll die from exhaustion in 6 days."
YES IT DOES.
"Goddamnit, tell me that before I waste 1500g next time."
THATS WHAT YOU GET FOR EATING ALL THE DORITOS, JOHN.

[RickAllison]

"Walk over there."
"Can't, walking would be gaining kinetic energy."
"You had to expend energy to do so, that's not gaining power."
"Well I couldn't change my magical energy into a spell either, could I?"

Seriously. If converting a spell slot (power the simulacrum already has) into a spell effect is gaining power, he can't walk. He can't talk, either, because he has to convert chemical energy into movement for the tongue and the larynx (I might have that part wrong, I'm not good with biology). He can't even fall because to do so would be transforming gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy. If the simulacrum is unable to convert his magical energy into spells, that means he can't do anythig.

[NewDM]

He banned Simulacrum because he knew I was going to chain it to create a sweatshop of my simulacra. He has figured out that he doesn't have to worry about combat abuse, he has to worry about economy abuse. Castles, locks, my wizard specializes in healing and tinkering.

Player "Why do all the NPCs in your game world look exactly the same DM?"
DM "Well about 70 years ago there was a great war known as the Simulacrum War..."


That we know of. I mean, I am not about to claim that it's possible, because I don't think it is, but if somebody's life (or even just their livelihood or ego) depended on proving it, there are a lot of things they could TRY to see if they worked.

This is easy. The base assumption is that math works on every plane of existence the same. In reality scientists theorize that there are an infinite number of worlds and that each one has slightly different laws of physics. We just happen to live in the one perfectly tuned for life. So the Simulacrum would simply use a scry spell that worked across dimensions and would try to find a dimension where 1+1 does not equal 2. Same for the rest of the impossible commands. The laws of non-contradiction might not exist on the proper plane of existence.

[krugaan]

This is easy. The base assumption is that math works on every plane of existence the same. In reality scientists theorize that there are an infinite number of worlds and that each one has slightly different laws of physics. We just happen to live in the one perfectly tuned for life. So the Simulacrum would simply use a scry spell that worked across dimensions and would try to find a dimension where 1+1 does not equal 2. Same for the rest of the impossible commands. The laws of non-contradiction might not exist on the proper plane of existence.

That's a pretty wild theory that mathematicians might subscribe to, but it is definitely unprovable with current technology. No DnD spell currently written would be able to do that without major house rules of some sort.

[SharkForce]

This is easy. The base assumption is that math works on every plane of existence the same. In reality scientists theorize that there are an infinite number of worlds and that each one has slightly different laws of physics. We just happen to live in the one perfectly tuned for life. So the Simulacrum would simply use a scry spell that worked across dimensions and would try to find a dimension where 1+1 does not equal 2. Same for the rest of the impossible commands. The laws of non-contradiction might not exist on the proper plane of existence.

or, to put it another way, the plane of limbo may very well have 1=2 at some point (though it probably won't stay that way for long).

[mgshamster]

or, to put it another way, the plane of limbo may very well have 1=2 at some point (though it probably won't stay that way for long).

Ah, Limbo. Where nothing is true and everything is fact.

[Soular]

Does anyone ask what an animated skeleton feels? The undead warrior standing guard in silent vigil at the doorway that his creator left him at long ago. What does this forgotten warrior in rusted armor with tattered, leathery scraps of skin, held together by an even more tattered life-force think of? What does he remember? What does he yearn for? What does he dream of behind the dull spark of his ever watchful eyes?

I think we are making the mistake of treating this as a binary situation with only one of two possible outcomes. We need to adopt a more spell fluid attitude to what is a potentially awesome spell. We have six pages of arguing back and forth over what the simulacrum can or cannot do, when what we need is a couple pages on how to incorporate the spell into our game in the most interesting ways. This happens when we put rules before rulings. The PHB is like a recipe book. It outlines the bare essentials to make a game happen, but imagination is what makes that game great. The rules are not there for the player to throw in the DM’s face and break the game. Likewise, the flavor text isn’t there to shut the players down and impose harsh limits on creativity. Instead of pages of arguing about what the spell can’t do, let’s discuss what it can do.

What if we adopt a position in between the two extremes? The rules state that the simulacrum obeys its caster’s spoken words. What it doesn’t tell us is the wiggle room we can use to breathe life into a campaign and make it memorable. Does the simulacrum have free will? Does the simulacrum have wants or desires apart from those of its master? If simulacrum 2 is told by sim 1 to obey the caster, is he as compelled to follow the orders given the same way he is when ordered by sim 1, or is he allowed to interpret those commands in a way that further his own goals? If the caster orders sim 2 to kill sim 1, does he obey? Does sim 2’s reaction to that order change if the original caster is evil aligned or good?

I would rule that a sim with a 20 intelligence is well capable of having his own agenda. Sure he is friendly to the caster, and sure he obeys him. Most of us have jobs, and some of us have employers we like. But if we won the lottery today would we be back to work tomorrow? The rules tell us that sim 2 follows the caster’s orders when told to do so, but what about when he is left alone? Does he stand in place waiting for the next order, or does he set in motion events leading to his freedom? In following the letter of the law, is there room for him to advance his own agenda?

I can see this as an awesome part of an epic campaign. I would put the players in a position where casting a few simulacrums is an obvious way to succeed. And I would find a way to wrest control of one of the sims from the caster. For instance, while sim 2 is outside tending the flower beds surrounding the caster’s home, perhaps a visit from an enemy caster becomes his bid for freedom. That enemy could dominate sim 2 and leave with him. Sim 2 could then, free from the influence of sim 1 and the caster, use the knowledge of his creator and the enemy to free himself forever of our PC’s control. He could then find ways to circumvent the restrictions he was created with, while hating the caster that ultimately led to his creation in the first place.

In time, sim 2 could become a powerful enemy in his own right. Maybe he aligns himself with a demonic power. With his ability and intelligence he could gain powerful allies and amass great wealth and influence. Imagine the pure Shyamalan-esque twist when the players discover years later that the great, evil force that they are tasked to deal with is one of their own making. Imagine the havoc sim 2 could cause for the players as a near perfect doppelganger of the PC, with all his knowledge. Their money isn’t safe. Their friends aren’t safe. He has the knowledge to completely turn their world upside-down.

D&D is not a game about rules; it is a game about rulings. Magic is wondrous and fantastic, and never works exactly the same way twice. Why else have a fireball that explodes like a small nuke one turn, and fizzles like a ladyfinger the next? Don’t limit yourselves to the RAW, or even the RAI. Let your imaginations run wild. Instead of looking at a spell and seeing what it can or can’t do, look to see how you can incorporate it into your game and breathe new life into it. Using Simulacrum as an I-win button isn’t fun, and neither is crippling the spell to the point of near worthlessness. Gary G. (PBUH) set out to create a game that allowed our imaginations to soar, to create awe-inspiring adventures, visit breath-taking places, and meet intriguing individuals. Nothing is stopping the DM from making a simulacrum one of those individuals. And I would argue that creatively bending the rules in search of high adventure is Gaming as Intended.

Rulings > rules.

[Segev]

We disagree on what it means to attempt a fundamentally-impossible task. So as long as the simulacrum comprehends that impossibility, I believe that there is no possible action it can take to attempt such tasks.If you believe it is impossible for you to learn to play the piano, but I order you to learn to play it, you can still undergo the actions taht you know others take to learn it. You can try. And you will, if you are my simulacrum, even though it is, in fact, impossible for you to learn to play the piano (since that is, in fact, learning).


I disagree. Under my understanding of the notion of an "attempt", the simulacrum can't try to act in a situation where it cannot act.Again, that's nonsense. My characters TRY to act in time to do things all the time that, due to game mechanics, they're too late for. Though, if you want to be consistent in your insistence on using the technical construct of the rules, you can't order the simulacrum when it isn't your turn, either, so anything you say when it can't act isn't an order. Equally silly result, but equally silly reliance on mechanical rigidity where it's pointless. Since you're using pointless mechanical rigidity to try to "prove" a point, this is a fair counterpoint.


In exactly the same way, if you accept the premise that the spell does not permit obedience of anyone but the caster, the simulacrum is incapable of trying to obey anyone else, because it cannot obey anyone else.Ah, but the difference is that you're trying to prove that as a conclusion. You don't get to use your conclusion as a premise and claim it's in the text because you assume it is.


No, I'm not. I believe you are misunderstanding the structure of my argument. I'm not sure where the disconnect is, so I'm not sure what to try to re-explain.Your argument is that, because it is impossible to follow some orders, this other order that is entirely possible to follow must actually not be possible to follow because you claim it's impossible to follow by a limitation in the spell that must be there because it has to be to make that order impossible to follow. Which it is impossible to follow, so obviously the text must say so. Or at least mean it.


I assert that I am conveying my reading of the RAW. Your disagreement with that reading cannot possibly be sufficient grounds to doubt my honesty. And if you do (irrationally) doubt that I believe what I say, what is the purpose of discussing anything with me?I'm not doubting your honesty. I'm pointing out that you can go ahead and say that you read it one way and I read it another, but that doesn't mean that the two ways of reading it are equally valid. I am implying - and now outright stating - that your way of reading it is as accurate as saying that you look at the world and believe Rainbow Brite uses star sprinkles to make the world be full of color, and that you think I'm wrong for believing that color is a product of photons with certain wavelengths bouncing off of/being absorbed by things.

In other words: what you are saying the spell says, it doesn't actually say. This is not an "interpretation" difference. You may as well look at the Constitution saying that Congress writes laws and the President signs them to mean that Congress approves laws the President writes. Because you "interpret" it that way. Interpretation doesn't mean "making things up." And when your "interpretation" requires actively violating the text as written, it isn't an interpretation; it's a house rule. Your "interpretation" violates the text as written; to make it supposedly not do so, you insert words that aren't there to make up limitations that aren't written.


Yes, that straw man where you claim that it's the casting of the spell per se that is a power increase!

It's not the casting of the spell, it's the gaining of control over a creature. That's abstract, but it's taking control that is the source of power, not the literal act of casting any given spell.It ceases to be a straw man when you actively defend the position, you realize.

And that's what you're doing now. You're claiming that using their abilities is an increase in power. This is simply not so. They have the power to control another being already; they can cast simulacrum. They have the power to speak all languages already: they can cast tongues.

Your logic literally makes them incapable of taking mechanical action, if taken consistently.


Wish is an example of a spell that has many uses, some of which are prohibited for the simulacrum and some of which work.

Nobody cares if it can cast Wish, but if it tries to use Wish to give itself resistance, that wish will fail because it's an increase in power. If it tries to use that wish to gain a loyal minion, that wish will fail, because it's an increase in power. If it tries to use the wish to kill an opponent: That wish will work because the simulacrum is not gaining in power.Killing an opponent is a gain in power; a dead opponent increases its ability to do things the living opponent would have prevented it from doing. Therefore, that wish fails under your interpretation. Unless you arbitrarily decide that that increase in power is acceptable, which is not consistent.


Wrong, the spell slot isn't at issue. The casting of a spell with that slot is not at issue. Is the purely the effect that is at issue. It is against the rules for the simulacrum to increase in power.It isn't increasing in power. It's using a power it already has. Therefore, its power remains constant. Heck, it theoretically goes down, because it now has less ability to recover from that expenditure of power.


Not if it's a power increase, that's ruled out. The ability to attune is fine, gaining power from doing so is not fine.And, since using a sword does more damage than using one's fist, obviously they can pick up a sword, but can't use it. Heck, since damaging one's foe is an increase in one's power over that foe, maybe they can't even punch. Or at least, if they punch, they can't do damage.


It's not semantics, it's nuance. Nothing prohibits the simulacrum from casting a spell from that spell slot. But the rule against gaining power does prevent the spell from having an outcome that increases the simulacrum's power. Ergo, the simulacrum can go through the motions of casting simulacrum, but it is rules prohibited from gaining any benefit.It's semantics. "Nuance" actually changes the meaning of something. "Semantics" is trying to argue that what you just said doesn't mean what you just said even though you're still saying it means just that.

In other words, it doesn't matter whether you meant "they cna't cast the spell" or "they can't get the effect of the spell;" your claim is that they can't do anything that has mechanical impact because doing things increases their power.

This is clearly so ludicrous as to not warrant serious consideration. Since your arguments require either this conclusion or, once again, entirely arbitrary distinctions of what you choose to allow and what you choose not to, your argument clearly fails to support whatever point you're trying to make. Unless you're trying to claim the spell is useless. In which case, your claim should be dismissed on the face of it, since nobody wants to play that game.


It sounds like you're arguing that the rule against gaining power should have no effect at all.Nonsense. I have spelled out repeatedly what it means. It means the simulacrum cannot gain levels, and, because the spell explicitly calls this out, cannot regain spell slots once they're expended. It really isn't as hard as you're making it, but simple and direct parsing of the RAW doesn't support the conclusion you want to be true, so you are inventing all sorts of things that aren't there and presuming your conclusion as the source of your proof of your conclusion.


For 5, specifically the friendly order, I'd think it would go like this:

Caster: Stop being friendly to me!
Sim: Ok, you're a jerk!
Sim: How was that master?This, I agree with.

[JeffreyGator]

I think we are making the mistake of treating this as a binary situation with only one of two possible outcomes. We need to adopt a more spell fluid attitude to what is a potentially awesome spell. We have six pages of arguing back and forth over what the simulacrum can or cannot do, when what we need is a couple pages on how to incorporate the spell into our game in the most interesting ways. This happens when we put rules before rulings. The PHB is like a recipe book. It outlines the bare essentials to make a game happen, but imagination is what makes that game great. The rules are not there for the player to throw in the DM’s face and break the game. Likewise, the flavor text isn’t there to shut the players down and impose harsh limits on creativity. Instead of pages of arguing about what the spell can’t do, let’s discuss what it can do.

What if we adopt a position in between the two extremes?

I would rule that a sim with a 20 intelligence is well capable of having his own agenda.
(Snip)
In following the letter of the law, is there room for him to advance his own agenda?

I can see this as an awesome part of an epic campaign. I would put the players in a position where casting a few simulacrums is an obvious way to succeed. And I would find a way to wrest control of one of the sims from the caster. For instance, while sim 2 is outside tending the flower beds surrounding the caster’s home, perhaps a visit from an enemy caster becomes his bid for freedom. That enemy could dominate sim 2 and leave with him. Sim 2 could then, free from the influence of sim 1 and the caster, use the knowledge of his creator and the enemy to free himself forever of our PC’s control. He could then find ways to circumvent the restrictions he was created with, while hating the caster that ultimately led to his creation in the first place.

In time, sim 2 could become a powerful enemy in his own right. Maybe he aligns himself with a demonic power. With his ability and intelligence he could gain powerful allies and amass great wealth and influence. Imagine the pure Shyamalan-esque twist when the players discover years later that the great, evil force that they are tasked to deal with is one of their own making.
(snip)
And I would argue that creatively bending the rules in search of high adventure is Gaming as Intended.

Rulings > rules.

Indeed. This is part of my intent in starting this thread. I like this idea as well as someone's suggestion of the dirty old wizard creating an unaging simulacrum of his lost love from apprentice days...

[RickAllison]

Nonsense. I have spelled out repeatedly what it means. It means the simulacrum cannot gain levels, and, because the spell explicitly calls this out, cannot regain spell slots once they're expended. It really isn't as hard as you're making it, but simple and direct parsing of the RAW doesn't support the conclusion you want to be true, so you are inventing all sorts of things that aren't there and presuming your conclusion as the source of your proof of your conclusion.

This, I agree with.

I would say that based on the text of the spell, the spell slots are an example of how it can't gain power, but not the only one. I would think other limited resources (ki, sorcery points, Mystic Arcanum, superiority dice, etc.) would also not recharge.

[JoeJ]

I would say that based on the text of the spell, the spell slots are an example of how it can't gain power, but not the only one. I would think other limited resources (ki, sorcery points, Mystic Arcanum, superiority dice, etc.) would also not recharge.

I agree with that. The other major thing we know that a Simulcrum doesn't recharge is hit points - it has to be repaired by the caster at significant cost.

[Segev]

I would say that based on the text of the spell, the spell slots are an example of how it can't gain power, but not the only one. I would think other limited resources (ki, sorcery points, Mystic Arcanum, superiority dice, etc.) would also not recharge.

Certainly a valid ruling.

[RickAllison]

Certainly a valid ruling.

Indeed. Not explicit by any stretch of the imagination, though. Otherwise, a copied 17th level Warlock would be able to have one True Polymorph per day.

[Xetheral]

Ah, but the difference is that you're trying to prove that as a conclusion. You don't get to use your conclusion as a premise and claim it's in the text because you assume it is.

That is not the structure of my argument.


Your argument is that, because it is impossible to follow some orders, this other order that is entirely possible to follow must actually not be possible to follow because you claim it's impossible to follow by a limitation in the spell that must be there because it has to be to make that order impossible to follow. Which it is impossible to follow, so obviously the text must say so. Or at least mean it.

That is not my argument.

If you are interested in understanding what my argument is, let me know, and I'll try to re-explain.


I'm not doubting your honesty. I'm pointing out that you can go ahead and say that you read it one way and I read it another, but that doesn't mean that the two ways of reading it are equally valid. I am implying - and now outright stating - that your way of reading it is as accurate as saying that you look at the world and believe Rainbow Brite uses star sprinkles to make the world be full of color, and that you think I'm wrong for believing that color is a product of photons with certain wavelengths bouncing off of/being absorbed by things.

If you're not doubting my honesty, please do not assert that "The issue is that you are NOT reading the RAW" in response to my assertion that "we disagree about the meaning of the RAW". The latter can be true no matter how strongly you feel (or how vociferously you express) that my interpretation is inferior to yours.


In other words: what you are saying the spell says, it doesn't actually say. This is not an "interpretation" difference. In other words: what you are saying the spell says, it doesn't actually say. This is not an "interpretation" difference. You may as well look at the Constitution saying that Congress writes laws and the President signs them to mean that Congress approves laws the President writes. Because you "interpret" it that way. Interpretation doesn't mean "making things up." And when your "interpretation" requires actively violating the text as written, it isn't an interpretation; it's a house rule. Your "interpretation" violates the text as written; to make it supposedly not do so, you insert words that aren't there to make up limitations that aren't written.

If I don't accept your premise (that my reading of the RAW is wrong) why should I accept your (offensive) conclusion (that my interpretation doesn't qualify as an interpretation and is instead "made up")?

[RickAllison]

I disagree. Under my understanding of the notion of an "attempt", the simulacrum can't try to act in a situation where it cannot act.

In exactly the same way, if you accept the premise that the spell does not permit obedience of anyone but the caster, the simulacrum is incapable of trying to obey anyone else, because it cannot obey anyone else.


That is not the structure of my argument.

You stated that the argument followed if your premise was accepted. The way you are parsing your argument is that the simulacrum cannot try to obey anyone else because the spell does not permit obedience. However, if your premise is not accepted (which I believe is what Segev is arguing is in conflict with RAW), then the logical argument cannot occur because it is founded on an unsubstantiated premise.

In logic, we make arguments based on premises that are established as true. If your premise is not established as true, then the logic following has no grounds.

[Xetheral]

You stated that the argument followed if your premise was accepted. The way you are parsing your argument is that the simulacrum cannot try to obey anyone else because the spell does not permit obedience. However, if your premise is not accepted (which I believe is what Segev is arguing is in conflict with RAW), then the logical argument cannot occur because it is founded on an unsubstantiated premise.

In logic, we make arguments based on premises that are established as true. If your premise is not established as true, then the logic following has no grounds.

My ultimate conclusion is merely that my interpretation is reasonable, not that it is necessary. I was attempting to demonstrate how, for those who do accept the premise, the interpretation follows logically. The validity of my argument therefore does not hinge on the truth of that premise. It may have been clearer if, instead of saying "if you accept the premise..." I'd instead said "if one accepts the proposition...".

[krugaan]

My ultimate conclusion is merely that my interpretation is reasonable, not that it is necessary. I was attempting to demonstrate how, for those who do accept the premise, the interpretation follows logically. The validity of my argument therefore does not hinge on the truth of that premise. It may have been clearer if, instead of saying "if you accept the premise..." I'd instead said "if one accepts the proposition...".

We may have to start using more formal representations of logic here...

given that:

[a] simulacrum creates a copy of a creature
[b] gains all spells, abilities, blah blah of that creature
[c] cannot "grow more powerful"
[d] cannot regain spell slots

and go from there...

then one can make easy unambiguous statements like

"[c] is a ambiguous and i interpret it thus"

or

"your statement is flawed because [c]" or whatever

[Zalabim]

While giant insect does what your bolded phrase claims (since it doesn't say it grants the insect - normally incapable of understanding language - the ability to understand language), nothing in the other two indicates your bolded statement is true. Are you advocating a house rule? Or are you claiming that there is text which indicates this?

True polymorph can arguably create a creature that doesn't understand language, but it isn't inherent to the spell. Creating an insect, obviously, would qualify. Creating a human, on the other hand, absolutely should create something that understands language (probably Common).

Simulacrum creates an illusory being which has the capabilities of the original. If "understand language" is one of the things the original can do, so, too, can the simulacrum.

And if "understand language" is not one of the things the original can do, then the simulacrum definitely cannot either.

To reiterate, my statement is that Giant Insect, Simulacrum, and True Polymorph are capable of making creatures that are unable to understand you, or anyone else, due to understanding no languages. This isn't arguable. This is literally true, as you go on to allow. It is not a house rule. Simulacrum and True Polymorph also have the ability to make creatures that do understand language, but the creature obeys either way.


Logic still does not follow. It knows it has been ordered to obey your non-verbal orders. This does not confer upon it the ability to be aware of your non-verbal orders. This remains within the same realm as ordering a simulacrum of a dog to fly or cast web. Or to draw a map of the dungeon the party is about to explore without first exploring it. (The latter might be doable if the simulacrum is of a being which would know that information, but it is not possible for a simulacrum of a being which has never studied it in any way, shape, manner, or form. The simulacrum can only act on what knowledge it has, and that includes of your orders.)

Piggybacking on this, it would also be impossible for a simulacrum to explore a dungeon, using its form as a disguise, then draw a map of the dungeon for the party based on what it just learned, as a simulacrum cannot learn. Relaxing that restriction so it can be ordered to enter a dungeon, draw a map as it goes, then return when finished, or removing the restriction so it can do as initially suggested make the spell more powerful, and may be better for fun at the table.


It sounds like you're arguing that the rule against gaining power should have no effect at all.

Segev does argue that the rule against learning should have no effect at all, explained by the mistaken belief that a simulacrum that does not know what your orders are is unable to follow your orders. As clarified, a simulacrum of a creature that cannot understand your orders still follows your orders. This leaves an unclear situation to how long is allowed between a given command and the simulacrum following the command, and potentially runs into the already unclear situation of what a simulacrum does when it does not have a command. Answers range from "immediately" to "indefinitely" and from "nothing" to "anything".


Does anyone ask what an animated skeleton feels? The undead warrior standing guard in silent vigil at the doorway that his creator left him at long ago. What does this forgotten warrior in rusted armor with tattered, leathery scraps of skin, held together by an even more tattered life-force think of? What does he remember? What does he yearn for? What does he dream of behind the dull spark of his ever watchful eyes?

I think we are making the mistake of treating this as a binary situation with only one of two possible outcomes. We need to adopt a more spell fluid attitude to what is a potentially awesome spell. We have six pages of arguing back and forth over what the simulacrum can or cannot do, when what we need is a couple pages on how to incorporate the spell into our game in the most interesting ways. This happens when we put rules before rulings. The PHB is like a recipe book. It outlines the bare essentials to make a game happen, but imagination is what makes that game great. The rules are not there for the player to throw in the DM’s face and break the game. Likewise, the flavor text isn’t there to shut the players down and impose harsh limits on creativity. Instead of pages of arguing about what the spell can’t do, let’s discuss what it can do.

What if we adopt a position in between the two extremes? The rules state that the simulacrum obeys its caster’s spoken words. What it doesn’t tell us is the wiggle room we can use to breathe life into a campaign and make it memorable. Does the simulacrum have free will? Does the simulacrum have wants or desires apart from those of its master? If simulacrum 2 is told by sim 1 to obey the caster, is he as compelled to follow the orders given the same way he is when ordered by sim 1, or is he allowed to interpret those commands in a way that further his own goals? If the caster orders sim 2 to kill sim 1, does he obey? Does sim 2’s reaction to that order change if the original caster is evil aligned or good?

I would rule that a sim with a 20 intelligence is well capable of having his own agenda. Sure he is friendly to the caster, and sure he obeys him. Most of us have jobs, and some of us have employers we like. But if we won the lottery today would we be back to work tomorrow? The rules tell us that sim 2 follows the caster’s orders when told to do so, but what about when he is left alone? Does he stand in place waiting for the next order, or does he set in motion events leading to his freedom? In following the letter of the law, is there room for him to advance his own agenda?

I can see this as an awesome part of an epic campaign. I would put the players in a position where casting a few simulacrums is an obvious way to succeed. And I would find a way to wrest control of one of the sims from the caster. For instance, while sim 2 is outside tending the flower beds surrounding the caster’s home, perhaps a visit from an enemy caster becomes his bid for freedom. That enemy could dominate sim 2 and leave with him. Sim 2 could then, free from the influence of sim 1 and the caster, use the knowledge of his creator and the enemy to free himself forever of our PC’s control. He could then find ways to circumvent the restrictions he was created with, while hating the caster that ultimately led to his creation in the first place.

In time, sim 2 could become a powerful enemy in his own right. Maybe he aligns himself with a demonic power. With his ability and intelligence he could gain powerful allies and amass great wealth and influence. Imagine the pure Shyamalan-esque twist when the players discover years later that the great, evil force that they are tasked to deal with is one of their own making. Imagine the havoc sim 2 could cause for the players as a near perfect doppelganger of the PC, with all his knowledge. Their money isn’t safe. Their friends aren’t safe. He has the knowledge to completely turn their world upside-down.

D&D is not a game about rules; it is a game about rulings. Magic is wondrous and fantastic, and never works exactly the same way twice. Why else have a fireball that explodes like a small nuke one turn, and fizzles like a ladyfinger the next? Don’t limit yourselves to the RAW, or even the RAI. Let your imaginations run wild. Instead of looking at a spell and seeing what it can or can’t do, look to see how you can incorporate it into your game and breathe new life into it. Using Simulacrum as an I-win button isn’t fun, and neither is crippling the spell to the point of near worthlessness. Gary G. (PBUH) set out to create a game that allowed our imaginations to soar, to create awe-inspiring adventures, visit breath-taking places, and meet intriguing individuals. Nothing is stopping the DM from making a simulacrum one of those individuals. And I would argue that creatively bending the rules in search of high adventure is Gaming as Intended.

Rulings > rules.

These are the kinds of considerations that I like, since the spell is loose enough to allow multiple interpretations of a simulacrum's awareness, knowledge, and behaviors. Consider this a +2.

[smcmike]

But what if I make a simalcrum of my cat?

Master: go catch some mice.
Simcat: licks paws
Master: darn it, my spell clearly states you must obey my spoken commands. Catch some mice!
Simcat: stretches
Master: please please please catch some mice
Simcat: meows loudly for din din.

[smcmike]

Master- bake me a cake. Just follow the directions written here step by step.
Sim- who wrote the directions?
Master- why does that matter?
Sim - I only take orders from you.
Master - face palm.

[krugaan]

Master- bake me a cake. Just follow the directions written here step by step.
Sim- who wrote the directions?
Master- why does that matter?
Sim - I only take orders from you.
Master - face palm.

Master - fine, i'll tell you how to bake the cake.
Sim - ok
Master - blah blah blah, ill be back in 4 hours
...time passes...
Master - where's my cake?
Sim - I don't know how to bake a cake
Master - i TOLD you how to do it?
Sim - I can't learn new skills. You read it off the box.
Master - WELL READ THE ... GODDAMNIT.

[Soular]

Indeed. This is part of my intent in starting this thread. I like this idea as well as someone's suggestion of the dirty old wizard creating an unaging simulacrum of his lost love from apprentice days...

Yes! You get it!

I think it would be awesome if some love-sick king who loses his wife hires a wizard to create a simulacrum of his recently departed wife. Only the wife was secretly evil, but loved her husband and the kingdom. But now the sim has all her memories, her evil tendencies, but not her emotions (love for the king and the people).

I am thinking of the movie Pet Sematary.

[smcmike]

Yes! You get it!

I think it would be awesome if some love-sick king who loses his wife hires a wizard to create a simulacrum of his recently departed wife. Only the wife was secretly evil, but loved her husband and the kingdom. But now the sim has all her memories, her evil tendencies, but not her emotions (love for the king and the people).

I am thinking of the movie Pet Sematary.

Nice. It's worth remembering that a lot of this thread assumes perfectly thought out instructions, and a sim used by an NPC could be operating on all sorts of instructions.

In the simQueen example, of course, she is actually forced to obey the wizard, not the king, which adds a whole new layer. Maybe the wiz replaced the queen without the knowledge of the king, and the sim is torn between her continued love for the the king and her orders to obey the wizard.

Also, this isn't laid out in the rules, but my guess is that a sim is infertile?

[Temperjoke]

Nice. It's worth remembering that a lot of this thread assumes perfectly thought out instructions, and a sim used by an NPC could be operating on all sorts of instructions.

In the simQueen example, of course, she is actually forced to obey the wizard, not the king, which adds a whole new layer. Maybe the wiz replaced the queen without the knowledge of the king, and the sim is torn between her continued love for the the king and her orders to obey the wizard.

Also, this isn't laid out in the rules, but my guess is that a sim is infertile?

The replicants, I mean, Simulacra have hidden themselves among the people in the city! We need to find them before the wizard does something nefarious to the kingdom!

[Segev]

That is not the structure of my argument.



That is not my argument.

If you are interested in understanding what my argument is, let me know, and I'll try to re-explain.Please do. If I ever say, "This is your argument," I fully intend to be corrected if any part of what I say is not, in fact, that person's argument. It is me trying to be as clear as I can about what I am hearing you say, because I can only agree with or disagree with what I understand is being said. I have no magical telepathy powers, after all. (I'm not sure I'd even want them. They sound awkward.)


If you're not doubting my honesty, please do not assert that "The issue is that you are NOT reading the RAW" in response to my assertion that "we disagree about the meaning of the RAW". The latter can be true no matter how strongly you feel (or how vociferously you express) that my interpretation is inferior to yours.



If I don't accept your premise (that my reading of the RAW is wrong) why should I accept your (offensive) conclusion (that my interpretation doesn't qualify as an interpretation and is instead "made up")?Okay. Let me try again, because you're clearly misunderstanding me.

Reasonable people can disagree on the meaning of a rule. When one person says, "The fly spell doesn't allow you to fly more than X feet above the ground, because it only lets you fly at Y speed for Z minutes," and another says, "It totally does, because you could cast it when you're X-5 feet above the ground, then keep going up," the first person saying, "you're reading permission into the spell that isn't there, but I'll grant that you can read the RAW your way and I can read it mine," is not actually being reasonable about disagreeing. He's still claiming the rules say something they absolutely do not.

I am saying that I cannot in good faith agree that your reading is a valid reading of the RAW. It isn't a matter of interpretation. Your reading logically fails without inserting as a premise the conclusion you wish to draw, because that premise is not present in the text of the spell and what IS present flatly contradicts it.


And if "understand language" is not one of the things the original can do, then the simulacrum definitely cannot either.

To reiterate, my statement is that Giant Insect, Simulacrum, and True Polymorph are capable of making creatures that are unable to understand you, or anyone else, due to understanding no languages. This isn't arguable. This is literally true, as you go on to allow. It is not a house rule. Simulacrum and True Polymorph also have the ability to make creatures that do understand language, but the creature obeys either way.Okay. That, I accept. What I parsed from your original post on the matter was that all things created by those spells are not capable of understanding language, and it is to that which I was objecting.


Piggybacking on this, it would also be impossible for a simulacrum to explore a dungeon, using its form as a disguise, then draw a map of the dungeon for the party based on what it just learned, as a simulacrum cannot learn. Relaxing that restriction so it can be ordered to enter a dungeon, draw a map as it goes, then return when finished, or removing the restriction so it can do as initially suggested make the spell more powerful, and may be better for fun at the table.That's straining "learn" so broadly that it becomes impossible for a simulacrum to act on any form of stimulus. "Attack anything other than me who enters this chamber." "...thirteen goblins just walked right through this chamber! Why didn't you attack!?" "I couldn't tell they had entered it. That would require me learning they were present."

But let me quote you clearly misunderstanding my position before I deliver the correction, so as not to repeat myself...too much.


Segev does argue that the rule against learning should have no effect at all, explained by the mistaken belief that a simulacrum that does not know what your orders are is unable to follow your orders.No. I argue that the rule against learning has very specific effects. Most importantly, it means it cannot gain levels, learn new skills, spells, feats, etc., or otherwise gain new mechanical abilities with which it was not created. (Caveat: any ability it has to manifest an effect that is an ability is an ability with which it was created; using such abilities is not "gaining" a new one.) It also spells out that this means it cannot regain expended spell slots. Another poster rather reasonably would rule that that example extends to other expendable resources, like ki points, sorcery points, mystic arcana, and superiority dice.

To reiterate: I in no way suggested that the rule against learning has no effect. I do assert that its effect is not so broad as to render the simulacrum unable to process changes to its environment nor develop memories. (It does mean that it can't grow based on those memories, however. It is forever exactly, personality-wise, the being as which it was created.)


As clarified, a simulacrum of a creature that cannot understand your orders still follows your orders. This leaves an unclear situation to how long is allowed between a given command and the simulacrum following the command, and potentially runs into the already unclear situation of what a simulacrum does when it does not have a command. Answers range from "immediately" to "indefinitely" and from "nothing" to "anything".There is no inclarity. To be consistent, it either can remember the orders and the conditions applied, or it cannot. You don't get to decide that "learning" only happens if it remembers your orders for 5 rounds, but not for 4. That's arbitrary and unsupported by the RAW.

All "cannot learn" means is that it can't gain new skills, feats, spells, levels, or other mechanical assets which would represent additions to its ability set. It does not mean it can't remember that it turned left at the T-junction to get here, nor that it can't read and follow instructions, nor that it can't tell that a goblin that has entered the room wasn't there before and is therefore a creature other than its master who has entered the room.

[SharkForce]

I agree with that. The other major thing we know that a Simulcrum doesn't recharge is hit points - it has to be repaired by the caster at significant cost.

incidentally, that is actually only implied by the spell.

seriously, read it. as written, it's just an extra (extremely expensive) method of restoring hit points. they never actually bothered to state that it couldn't recover HP by other methods.

[Segev]

incidentally, that is actually only implied by the spell.

seriously, read it. as written, it's just an extra (extremely expensive) method of restoring hit points. they never actually bothered to state that it couldn't recover HP by other methods.

Woops! That is peculiar. And looking back at least to 3e, it technically doesn't say it can't be healed "normally," either. I wonder if 2e and 1e also relied on the "you can repair damage this way" text to imply without stating that it can't otherwise heal.

[SharkForce]

in 3e, i believe it would have been handled by default rules; the simulacrum is not alive or undead, so most healing magic and negative energy magic wouldn't restore HP. it also wouldn't recover HP naturally because it isn't alive.

2e doesn't have anything specific preventing regular healing either, though.

[Segev]

It would seem to derive its stats from those of the original, in 3e, which tells me that it would be affected by spells that affect the creature type of the creature it mimics, by default.

[Elbeyon]

Rule check for me. Aren't undead creatures healed by healing spells this edition? I thought everything was healed by cure spells, even golems.

[krugaan]

incidentally, that is actually only implied by the spell.

seriously, read it. as written, it's just an extra (extremely expensive) method of restoring hit points. they never actually bothered to state that it couldn't recover HP by other methods.

Hah, I never realized that either. It's amazing how much we can infer about something without realizing that it isn't strictly there.

Then again, how do you "regain hit points normally?"

[Temperjoke]

Hah, I never realized that either. It's amazing how much we can infer about something without realizing that it isn't strictly there.

Then again, how do you "regain hit points normally?"

Dice, I believe, after a rest.

[krugaan]

Dice, I believe, after a rest.

Right, so, technically ... you could heal a sim with medkits and a medic, which would be way cheaper than 10g a hp or whatever it is.

[JoeJ]

incidentally, that is actually only implied by the spell.

seriously, read it. as written, it's just an extra (extremely expensive) method of restoring hit points. they never actually bothered to state that it couldn't recover HP by other methods.

Interesting. In that case I'll say it's pretty clearly RAI that they can't regain hit points normally, because if they could the ability to repair them at that high a price would be completely useless.

[Vogonjeltz]

It ceases to be a straw man when you actively defend the position, you realize.

It would be, if I had done that. I didn't defend that position, however.


And that's what you're doing now. You're claiming that using their abilities is an increase in power. This is simply not so. They have the power to control another being already; they can cast simulacrum. They have the power to speak all languages already: they can cast tongues.

Your logic literally makes them incapable of taking mechanical action, if taken consistently.

That is a bald faced lie. I never, not once, said that casting spells increases their power. You can't quote me on that because it never happened.

I said they can not become more powerful, that is all. Consequentially, if the effect of a particular spell would be a power increase, that spell fails to function for the Simulacrum. That in no way prevents them from casting spells, which is their ability (what spell they cast is NOT the ability).

The position is logically consistent and in no way impedes their actions. Simulacrum can, unequivocally, use the Cast a Spell action.


Killing an opponent is a gain in power; a dead opponent increases its ability to do things the living opponent would have prevented it from doing. Therefore, that wish fails under your interpretation. Unless you arbitrarily decide that that increase in power is acceptable, which is not consistent.

Killing an opponent might result in an XP gain, which is an increase in power, which is prohibited. That doesn't mean the Simulacrum can't kill an opponent, just that it won't gain any benefit from doing so. The wish succeeds under my interpretation (well, potentially assuming there's no monkey paw involved). You aren't stating my position correctly.


It isn't increasing in power. It's using a power it already has. Therefore, its power remains constant. Heck, it theoretically goes down, because it now has less ability to recover from that expenditure of power.

Spellcasting is the power it already has. The outcome of the spell simulacrum (a minion under its control) is not. That is an addition in power. The power is not constant as it has gained additional powers. It retains the spellcasting ability, so no, its power has not been reduced.


And, since using a sword does more damage than using one's fist, obviously they can pick up a sword, but can't use it. Heck, since damaging one's foe is an increase in one's power over that foe, maybe they can't even punch. Or at least, if they punch, they can't do damage.

Not how that works at all.


It's semantics. "Nuance" actually changes the meaning of something. "Semantics" is trying to argue that what you just said doesn't mean what you just said even though you're still saying it means just that.

In other words, it doesn't matter whether you meant "they cna't cast the spell" or "they can't get the effect of the spell;" your claim is that they can't do anything that has mechanical impact because doing things increases their power.

This is clearly so ludicrous as to not warrant serious consideration. Since your arguments require either this conclusion or, once again, entirely arbitrary distinctions of what you choose to allow and what you choose not to, your argument clearly fails to support whatever point you're trying to make. Unless you're trying to claim the spell is useless. In which case, your claim should be dismissed on the face of it, since nobody wants to play that game.

Semantics is taken to mean, colloquially, weasel words. This is not the use of weasel words (hence the pejorative use of 'semantic game' is not applicable), it's picking apart the specific things that can and can't be done. The simulacrum retains their power (to cast spells using the cast a spell action) but is limited for specific outcomes as some other outcomes would be a rules violation.

It does matter and I'm not arguing they can't do anything with mechanical impact, that was the whole point of drawing the distinction between spell outcomes that improve the simulacrum or increase it's power vs those that do not.

Only by glossing over that important distinction does the simulacrum become incapable of doing more things. An appreciation of nuance is important to understanding the rules of the game (or any written work for that matter).


Nonsense. I have spelled out repeatedly what it means. It means the simulacrum cannot gain levels, and, because the spell explicitly calls this out, cannot regain spell slots once they're expended. It really isn't as hard as you're making it, but simple and direct parsing of the RAW doesn't support the conclusion you want to be true, so you are inventing all sorts of things that aren't there and presuming your conclusion as the source of your proof of your conclusion.

Not gaining levels is only an example of one thing the simulacrum can not do. It's not the beginning and end of it, but it's certainly an important example to give so that the reader is aware of just how far the rule should be taken, not merely applying to in character things, but also to the larger meta-game rules. It also says "or other abilities" as another example.

And the RAW most definitely do support it. that's the first clause: "The simulacrum lacks the ability to learn or become more powerful"
Blanket prohibition with no limitations.


incidentally, that is actually only implied by the spell.

Unless of course, it's a construct...which it pretty clearly is (even if not stated outright) being made of ice.

As an example, Cure Wounds doesn't work on constructs.

[smcmike]

And the RAW most definitely do support it. that's the first clause: "The simulacrum lacks the ability to learn or become more powerful"
Blanket prohibition with no limitations.


If you truly read this as a blanket prohibition with no limitations, why do you reject the assertion that the simulacrum is incapable of, say, picking up and using a sword, or donning armor?

Can it cast unseen servant? Comprehend languages? Darkvision? Light?



Unless of course, it's a construct...which it pretty clearly is (even if not stated outright) being made of ice.

As an example, Cure Wounds doesn't work on constructs.

I agree that it should be a construct, but there is no support for this in the text. In fact, it clearly says "it can . . . otherwise be affected as a normal creature." Normal creatures can be cured with cure wounds.

[JoeJ]

I said they can not become more powerful, that is all. Consequentially, if the effect of a particular spell would be a power increase, that spell fails to function for the Simulacrum. That in no way prevents them from casting spells, which is their ability (what spell they cast is NOT the ability).

No spell effect ever increases the power of the caster. It might decrease the caster's power or leave it unchanged, but it never increases it.

[Segev]

It would be, if I had done that. I didn't defend that position, however.



That is a bald faced lie. I never, not once, said that casting spells increases their power. You can't quote me on that because it never happened.You're either ignoring later posts, or missing them, as I have accepted that you said "they can't get the effect of casting a spell," and gone on to prove that this is a semantic difference only and that the net effect is that they, for all practical purposes, cannot cast spells by your interpretation.


I said they can not become more powerful, that is all. Consequentially, if the effect of a particular spell would be a power increase, that spell fails to function for the Simulacrum. That in no way prevents them from casting spells, which is their ability (what spell they cast is NOT the ability).Conveniently, casting a spell never increases their power, because by virtue of having the power to cast that spell, they have the power already that is the effect of that spell. Therefore, casting simulacrum does not increase their power, because they already had the power to have a simulacrum by virtue of being able to cast the spell.


Killing an opponent might result in an XP gain, which is an increase in power, which is prohibited. That doesn't mean the Simulacrum can't kill an opponent, just that it won't gain any benefit from doing so. The wish succeeds under my interpretation (well, potentially assuming there's no monkey paw involved). You aren't stating my position correctly.Please give me an exact quote I may use as the definitive "Vogonjeltz's position," because it seems that my quoting you and responding to it thus far has not qualified as such.


Spellcasting is the power it already has. The outcome of the spell simulacrum (a minion under its control) is not. That is an addition in power. The power is not constant as it has gained additional powers. It retains the spellcasting ability, so no, its power has not been reduced.If it can cast the spell simulacrum, then the outcome of that spell is already within its power, by virtue of being able to cast the spell.

Your interpretation leads to the logical conclusions I have already drawn, which you reject in the quotes below.


Not how that works at all."Nuh-uh" isn't a rebuttal, you know.

For reference, what Vogonjeltz is saying is "not how that works at all" is my pointing out that using a sword results in more damage being dealt than the simulacrum could have gotten by using its fist.

If using a spell creates an effect that results in greater power than the caster had before he cast the spell, then using a sword results in an effect (more damage) than the wielder had before he picked up the sword.


Semantics is taken to mean, colloquially, weasel words. This is not the use of weasel words (hence the pejorative use of 'semantic game' is not applicable), it's picking apart the specific things that can and can't be done. The simulacrum retains their power (to cast spells using the cast a spell action) but is limited for specific outcomes as some other outcomes would be a rules violation.

It does matter and I'm not arguing they can't do anything with mechanical impact, that was the whole point of drawing the distinction between spell outcomes that improve the simulacrum or increase it's power vs those that do not.It's semantics, whether you like the "colloquial connotation" or not. Because there is no FUNCTIONAL difference between being unable to cast a spell and being unable to get the effect of the spell.


Only by glossing over that important distinction does the simulacrum become incapable of doing more things. An appreciation of nuance is important to understanding the rules of the game (or any written work for that matter).All outcomes of casting a spell increase the simulacrum's power, if you use the definitions you're invoking. Because the effect of a spell is useful, while having an uncast spell slot is not useful until you cast it. Therefore, it is an increase in power to get any effect out of casting a spell.

To argue otherwise does not provide you room to say "this spell is an increase in power, while this one is not." If the simulacrum can cast a spell and get its effect without increasing in power, that means that he had the power to get that effect by virtue of having the spell and requisite slot. It doesn't matter what that spell and its effect is: he has the power to cast it, so he has the power inherent in its effect already at his disposal.

To argue otherwise is to argue that any effect is an increase in power, because he didn't have that effect's benefits before he cast the spell. It is also to argue that wielding a sword results in an effect that is an increase in power, which means he can't use a sword to do damage.


Not gaining levels is only an example of one thing the simulacrum can not do. It's not the beginning and end of it, but it's certainly an important example to give so that the reader is aware of just how far the rule should be taken, not merely applying to in character things, but also to the larger meta-game rules. It also says "or other abilities" as another example.I never argued otherwise. I point to that as a guiding example, in fact. You'll note the things that are used as examples represent what is normally termed "character advancement," and where not, it is "recovery mechanics." Nowhere does it say they can't use things they already have at their disposal. That includes spells, and spells include their effects.


And the RAW most definitely do support it. that's the first clause: "The simulacrum lacks the ability to learn or become more powerful"
Blanket prohibition with no limitations.And your reading of the RAW may, in fact, be a valid one. It also is a ludicrous one, since the consequences of that reading being applied consistently mean that it literally cannot do anything. Because anything it does involves learning about a change to the world around it, and doing anything results in an effect which is an increase in its power.


Unless of course, it's a construct...which it pretty clearly is (even if not stated outright) being made of ice.No, it's an illusion, made of shadow-stuff (saith the spell). In theory, nothing in the spell says the ice moves when the spell is done being cast. Personally, I think it's meant to, but that's not what the spell says. It also doesn't say it doesn't, so... *shrug*

[SharkForce]

like i said, the spell certainly *implies* that the simulacrum requires the (very expensive) healing process to repair damage done. i would certainly agree that the likely intent is for the repair to be the only way to restore hit points lost. but so long as we're arguing RAW, well, so far as i can tell the writers just kinda assumed we'd figure it out ourselves.

(and to be fair, there appears to be a fairly consistent agreement that the simulacrum is indeed supposed to be unable to heal apart from the expensive repair procedure, which would suggest they did a pretty good job of implying that you need to use that expensive repair procedure).

[NewDM]

Hey I know, why doesn't someone spam this question on Twitter and get an official response?

Does casting a spell (like Simulacrum) increase a Simulacrum's power and therefore is not allowed?

[Xetheral]

Please do. If I ever say, "This is your argument," I fully intend to be corrected if any part of what I say is not, in fact, that person's argument. It is me trying to be as clear as I can about what I am hearing you say, because I can only agree with or disagree with what I understand is being said. I have no magical telepathy powers, after all. (I'm not sure I'd even want them. They sound awkward.)

My argument is as follows:

For those who interpret the RAW as including an implicit limitation against sharing control, it is reasonable to prioritize that limitation over the rule that the simulacrum obeys your orders because there are multiple examples of other limitations (including inherent and rule-based) that take priority over obedience.

The fact that you do not interpret the RAW as including such an implicit limitation does not undermine my argument because I am not claiming that the RAW requires finding such a limitation. Similarly, recitation of the rule that the simulacrum is obedient also does not undermine my argument because the extent of that rule is the very thing being discussed.

Arguing that my examples are categorically different than an implicit limitation, as many posters (including you) have done, is an effective argument, because it undermines my evidence. Discussion of this point, however, has yielded an additional source of disagreement regarding whether a simulacrum, knowingly faced with an inherently-impossible task, can nevertheless "attempt" the task. I argue no, other posters argue yes. Unless this disagreement is resolved first, we're not going to be able to reach agreement on whether my argument survives this type of critique.


Okay. Let me try again, because you're clearly misunderstanding me.

Reasonable people can disagree on the meaning of a rule. When one person says, "The fly spell doesn't allow you to fly more than X feet above the ground, because it only lets you fly at Y speed for Z minutes," and another says, "It totally does, because you could cast it when you're X-5 feet above the ground, then keep going up," the first person saying, "you're reading permission into the spell that isn't there, but I'll grant that you can read the RAW your way and I can read it mine," is not actually being reasonable about disagreeing. He's still claiming the rules say something they absolutely do not.

I am saying that I cannot in good faith agree that your reading is a valid reading of the RAW. It isn't a matter of interpretation. Your reading logically fails without inserting as a premise the conclusion you wish to draw, because that premise is not present in the text of the spell and what IS present flatly contradicts it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect you're using the phrase "it isn't a matter of interpretation" idiomatically to mean "it isn't a close call". Unfortunately, when I say "this is my interpretation" and you respond with "it isn't a matter of interpretation", it comes across instead as if you're saying "there aren't multiple viewpoints on this question" or "this isn't up for debate", both of which are inherently false (and disrespectful) when said to someone who both holds a different viewpoint than you do and is debating with you.

If I am wrong about your meaning and you're using "it isn't a matter of interpretation" non-idiomatically to literally deny that this is "a question on which people hold different interpretations", then there is a problem, because in that case it appears that your definition of "an interpretation" is "a reading of the RAW that you, Segev, agree is valid". This is an untenable definition, because by the very nature of interpretative debates, not all participants are going to agree on what readings are and are not valid. After everyone has consider the available evidence and heard the arguments, your opinion on what is and is not valid is in no way privileged over my own, or any other poster's. Using "it isn't a matter of interpretation" as a non-idiomatic rebuttal is akin to claiming such privilege for your opinion over the opinions of those who disagree with you.

[Segev]

My argument is as follows:

For those who interpret the RAW as including an implicit limitation against sharing control, it is reasonable to prioritize that limitation over the rule that the simulacrum obeys your orders because there are multiple examples of other limitations (including inherent and rule-based) that take priority over obedience.The issue is that it isn't a valid interpretation. I'm sorry you find that to be rude to say, but arguing that fireballs can do piercing damage because flames look pointy is as valid an "interpretation" of the text of fireball as this "interpretation" is of the RAW.

You can certainly house rule it. But the text of the spell flatly contradicts your version of it.

Again, I'm sorry you find that to be rude. But I cannot be honest and say "the text of the spell allows what you're saying."


The RAW says that it obeys the caster's orders. To allow what you're saying, it would have to have explicit text allowing it to violate your orders if your orders give another creature authority over it.

Such text doesn't exist. It obeys your orders. There is no "limitation" to that. It in fact is not prohibited by the text of the spell from obeying others' orders, as long as such obedience doesn't conflict with obeying yours. If it wants to, it can obey anybody's orders...as long as your orders don't prevent it from doing so.

So it is exactly OPPOSITE of what you're saying. There is no "limitation over the rule that the simulacrum obeys your orders." At all. The only "limitation" is that it MUST obey your orders, and cannot defy them.

[wunderkid]

My argument is as follows:

For those who interpret the RAW as including an implicit limitation against sharing control, it is reasonable to prioritize that limitation over the rule that the simulacrum obeys your orders because there are multiple examples of other limitations (including inherent and rule-based) that take priority over obedience.

I'm taking this as your aguement, and asking where RAW it imposes these limitations against sharing control?

And where these examples that take priority over obedience are?

The RAW:
It obeys your spoken commands, moving and acting in accordance with your wishes.

So far every example ive seen has fallen into three categories:

1) categorically impossible. I.e. 'disobey this... Order' one that can't be achieved because doing so creates a paradox where it it has to disobey. These types of order are completely irrelevant due to their nature.

2) theoretically impossible 'plant this daisy on the moon'.

A task that the simulacrum has no way of achieving.

however the disagreement stands on if it would even attempt it or not. However my view point is that it would try to the best of its ability to achieve what you are asking.

For example: 'kill that golem'. The final outcome is unknown, killing that Golem 'may' be impossible for your simulacrum, but it will still attempt it. Even for something radically impossible 'plant this daisy on the moon', it will stop, think if there is some method of achieving what you are asking, and then draw the conclusion it won't work.

It has tried simply by trying to come up with an idea of how to achieve your wishes. And failed. But at no point does the order just cease to exist because it's not possible. The simulacrum will always try, even if trying is as simple as applying logic in its head and working out it is impossible.

Remember guaranteed success is not a prerequisite for an order. It can only work to the best of its abilities.

3) a command that is possible. 'stand over there'.

A task well within the sims capabilities.

The order to follow another person's commands is in the 3 category. It is not an order that is impossible or paradoxical to achieve.

With regards to the RAW.

Is it: obeying your spoken commands, moving and acting in accordance with your wishes: by following the order to follow the commands of another person?

Yes.

Is it obeying your spoken commands, moving and acting in accordance with your wishes: if it refuses your order to follow the commands of another person?

No.

[Xetheral]

The issue is that it isn't a valid interpretation. I'm sorry you find that to be rude to say, but arguing that fireballs can do piercing damage because flames look pointy is as valid an "interpretation" of the text of fireball as this "interpretation" is of the RAW.

You can certainly house rule it. But the text of the spell flatly contradicts your version of it.

Again, I'm sorry you find that to be rude. But I cannot be honest and say "the text of the spell allows what you're saying."


The RAW says that it obeys the caster's orders. To allow what you're saying, it would have to have explicit text allowing it to violate your orders if your orders give another creature authority over it.

Such text doesn't exist. It obeys your orders. There is no "limitation" to that. It in fact is not prohibited by the text of the spell from obeying others' orders, as long as such obedience doesn't conflict with obeying yours. If it wants to, it can obey anybody's orders...as long as your orders don't prevent it from doing so.

So it is exactly OPPOSITE of what you're saying. There is no "limitation over the rule that the simulacrum obeys your orders." At all. The only "limitation" is that it MUST obey your orders, and cannot defy them.

Didn't I just explain how my argument isn't undermined by either A) your disagreement on the validity of the interpretation, and B) restating the rule on obedience? It appears your response is limited to those points, so I'm not sure how to respond other than to reiterate that, structurally, those are not valid critiques of my argument.

I'm also curious whether you were using "it's not a matter of interpretation" idiomatically or not, if you wouldn't mind clarifying.

[smcmike]

For those who interpret the RAW as including an implicit limitation against sharing control, it is reasonable to prioritize that limitation over the rule that the simulacrum obeys your orders because there are multiple examples of other limitations (including inherent and rule-based) that take priority over obedience.

Can you explain why you "interpret the RAW as including an implicit limitation against sharing control?"

I'm sorry if you covered that before, but this is the entire argument, right? I'm not saying your interpretation is invalid, I just want to know what it is based upon.

[krugaan]

couple notes I thought about after rereading the spell:

- it is indeed comprised of the snow and ice, which are not just reagents of the spell: when killed, "it reverts to snow and melts instantly."

- the simulacrum "is friendly to you and and creatures you designate." While it does not say it stays this way forever, the omission of a time limit does heavily imply that, given the appearance of such a time limit on similar spells like awaken. To me, at least, friendly would imply no attempt to interfere with the simulacrum chain, but "friendly" does not mean "fanatically devoted"... I wouldn't cede control of a simulacrum to my creator, even if such a thing is possible.

- It "obeys your spoken commands, moving and acting in accordance with your wishes blah blah blah". That phrase goes far beyond it "does what you say", the fact they specifically went out of their way to phrase it again differently definitely means the simulacrum will faithfully attempt to follow the spirit of the order as well as the letter. Although, errors in communication are possible, i suppose...

[wunderkid]

Didn't I just explain how my argument isn't undermined by either A) your disagreement on the validity of the interpretation, and B) restating the rule on obedience? It appears your response is limited to those points, so I'm not sure how to respond other than to reiterate that, structurally, those are not valid critiques of my argument.

Right as myself and seg have basically been putting forth the same argument here I'd like to extend on how you're treating RAW, and how it feels like you're using RAI thinly disguised as RAW. (no offense meant here but it really does feel like youre using RAI)


The RAW itself:
It obeys your spoken commands, moving and acting in accordance with your wishes

With regards to the RAW.

Is the sim: obeying your spoken commands, moving and acting in accordance with your wishes: by following the order to follow the commands of another person?

Yes.

Is the SIM: obeying your spoken commands, moving and acting in accordance with your wishes: if it refuses the order of another person you have designated?

No.

If the SIM follows an order given to him by a person you have designated obeying your spoken commands?

Yes.

If the SIM refuses to follow an order given to him by someone you have designated is he following your spoken command?

No.

AS WRITTEN refusing to follow the command does not work RAW. RAI however you can argue whatever you like.

If you could structure a response from your view point using RAW and showing me how your interpretation works using a similar set up to how I have here it would be helpful.

[Malifice]

Otherwise you might run into this sort of argument about how the rule should be interpreted.

As a DM I dont brook arguments about how rules are interpreted. I'll allow a player to make a case, consider that position, then make a ruling (taking into account the rules as I interpret them in the context of fun, balance, internal consistency, my role as the DM and logic). If there are arguments after that, I ask the player to suck it up and cease and desist. Any whinging after that, then I show them the door.

I have a zero tolerance policy for whingers, arguments or rules lawyers in my games. I DM fairly, without fear or favor. Or to put it another way:

It is the spirit of the game, not the letter of the rules, which is important. NEVER hold to the letter written, nor allow some barracks room lawyer to force quotations from the rule book upon you, IF it goes against the obvious intent of the game. As you hew the line with respect to conformity to major systems and uniformity of play in general, also be certain the game is mastered by you and not by your players. Within the broad parameters give in the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Volumes, YOU are creator and final arbiter. By ordering things as they should be, the game as a WHOLE first, your CAMPAIGN next, and your participants thereafter, you will be playing Advanced Dungeons and Dragons as it was meant to be. May you find as much pleasure in so doing as the rest of us do.

Gygax. G -1E DMG, page 230


2 - The way you are interpreting the statement is not the only one and might not be the best.

I agree. There are multiple ways a simulacra can interpret virtually any order. But I'm the one playing the the simulacrum (with regards to its desires, wants, knowledge and perceptions) subject to a broad obligation to 'be friendly to the caster and obey his orders'. So I as the DM (playing the simulacrum) choose how to interpret the order, and not the player.


And, if they don't agree with your interpretation of their orders, it will all end up in an argument to see who is best at interpreting, and there is no easy way out of there.

Yes there is. Its called 'the door'. I'm the DM who is playing the simulacrum. Fair use gets fair results. My players dont get to tell me how NPCs interpret their orders. If they want to complain about it, they can find a different game to play in.


But still, I am always very hesitant about trying to understand the players' statements as something other than what they mean to say.

You might be hesitiant, but the simulacrum might not be. Dont confuse yourself as DM with the simulacrum. Some simulacrums might be very literal when they are following orders; some might be very creative. The players dont determine what the Simulacrum thinks or percieves or desires, the DM does.

Also remember, the DM is the final arbiter on the rules, and every rule is to be interpreted in context with the DMs role as the DM (balance, fun, actions having consequences, etc).

Within those two guidelines, there is no problem. For a creative DM anyways.

[Segev]

Didn't I just explain how my argument isn't undermined by either A) your disagreement on the validity of the interpretation, and B) restating the rule on obedience? It appears your response is limited to those points, so I'm not sure how to respond other than to reiterate that, structurally, those are not valid critiques of my argument.My response is "limited" to those points because you're...really not addressing them.

You're saying there exists something in the text that is not there. If we both read the spell fly's text, and one of us says, "This spell clearly allows you to take to the air and move at a speed of 60 ft. with normal per-round movement," and the other says, "There is an implied ability to move in three dimensions without impedence, so it also lets you burrow through the ground at 60 feet per round," the one saying the second thing is not making a valid interpretation of the text.

That is the level at which I am saying your "interpretation" fails: it is not an interpretation. My disagreement isn't what undermines your interpretation's validity. The fact that your interpretation requires doing exactly the opposite of what the text says to do undermines your interpre


I'm also curious whether you were using "it's not a matter of interpretation" idiomatically or not, if you wouldn't mind clarifying.I mean it quite literally. You are not "interpreting" the text. You are ignoring the text and inserting text that is not there.

You are saying there is an "implied limit" that it "only" obeys your orders. The word "only" never appears, nor do any synonnyms. Therefore, nothing in the spell actually indicates that it is incapable of obeying others' orders.

You are saying that this "implied limit" (which is very much not there) then makes it so that the simulacrum can ignore the orders of somebody you order it to obey. This is flatly contradicted by the text of the spell requiring the simulacrum to obey your orders. It gives no exceptions to this blanket requirement; the simulacrum must obey your orders. (Note that there is no implication nor suggestion that "obey" means "succeed at the task you order it to do." It means "do its best to succeed at the task you order it to do.")

Therefore, if you say, "Obey Bob's every order," that is an order your simulacrum must follow to the best of its ability. If Bob says, "Wash my car," and the simulacrum refuses, it is disobeying your order. It cannot do that according to the text of the spell.


Therefore, your "interpretation" is 100% contradicted by the text of the spell. It both requires an insertion of an "implied limitation" that is absolutely not present, and then that that "implied limitation" allow an exception to the text that is already present. Neither is the case. There is no legitimate reading of the text of that spell which generates that interpretation. It is therefore not a valid interpretation.

I say this with as little rudeness as is possible, because it is not intended to be insulting, but you are wrong if you claim the text says anything that supports your argument/interpretation. Because it doesn't.

I hope I have now addressed the specifics of your argument with sufficient analysis based on the text of the spell to persuade you, because I don't like people being factually incorrect.



Note, please, too, that it's a fine house rule, if you want to make it. I wouldn't, personally, but there's nothing wrong with such a house rule. But it is a house rule, not an interpretation of what is actually written.

It is flatly contradicted by what is written.

[Temperjoke]

At some point the forums are just going to flat out decide to ban all talk regarding Wish/Simulacra.

[Segev]

At some point the forums are just going to flat out decide to ban all talk regarding Wish/Simulacra.

Which means we'll have to have our simulacra have those discussions for us, so they get banned instead of us! (I take it there will be a 33% chance that they will be forever banned each time they do it?)

[NewDM]

Which means we'll have to have our simulacra have those discussions for us, so they get banned instead of us! (I take it there will be a 33% chance that they will be forever banned each time they do it?)

Why not just Tweet JeremyCrawford and get an official answer?

[jas61292]

(I take it there will be a 33% chance that they will be forever banned each time they do it?)

Yeah, definitely. That's something we can agree on.

[Xetheral]

Can you explain why you "interpret the RAW as including an implicit limitation against sharing control?"

I'm sorry if you covered that before, but this is the entire argument, right? I'm not saying your interpretation is invalid, I just want to know what it is based upon.

Check out the posts of RedMage125 and Jas61292 in the first two pages of the thread. Those are the arguments that convinced me.

The basic idea is that the spell doesn't explicitly permit transference/sharing of the simulacrum's magically-enforced obedience, and permitting a command to do so based on the "obedient simulacrum" clause is therefore arguably an expansion of the scope of the spell. Furthermore, the immediately-preceding sentence to that clause is: "The simulacrum is friendly to you and creatures you designate." (Emphasis added.) The obedience clause reads: "It obeys your spoken commands..." which notably does not include the emphasized qualifier above. It is a general rule of interpretation that different phrasings should be interpreted differently (for evidence in the context of statutory interpretation, which you may or may not feel is relevant, see the nice summary by the Congressional Research Service here (https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/97-589.pdf), page 15), and therefore the obedience provision should (arguably) not be read to say "It obeys your spoken commands, and those of creatures you designate...".

But no, that isn't my argument. My argument can be found in itallics in this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20690928&postcount=208).

If you have any further questions, please let me know.


I'm taking this as your aguement, and asking where RAW it imposes these limitations against sharing control?

And where these examples that take priority over obedience are?

See above for the first, and the examples (which I know you disagree with) can be found here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20683217&postcount=131).


however the disagreement stands on if it would even attempt it or not. However my view point is that it would try to the best of its ability to achieve what you are asking.

For example: 'kill that golem'. The final outcome is unknown, killing that Golem 'may' be impossible for your simulacrum, but it will still attempt it. Even for something radically impossible 'plant this daisy on the moon', it will stop, think if there is some method of achieving what you are asking, and then draw the conclusion it won't work.

It has tried simply by trying to come up with an idea of how to achieve your wishes. And failed. But at no point does the order just cease to exist because it's not possible. The simulacrum will always try, even if trying is as simple as applying logic in its head and working out it is impossible.

Remember guaranteed success is not a prerequisite for an order. It can only work to the best of its abilities.

I specifically picked examples that are not simply practically impossible, such as ordering it to kill a golem that is too strong. I agree that those types of tasks would be attempted. Instead I picked examples where, in my opinion, no progress can be made due to the nature of the task. Ordering a simulacrum to "plant this daisy on the moon" may be practically impossible, but the simulacrum could get closer to the goal by (e.g.) researching rocketry. By contrast, ordering the simulacrum to "plant this daisy on the moon" on a world that had no moon cannot be attempted. The simulacrum won't try to plant the daisy on the (non-existent) moon, because nothing it could possibly do will bring it closer to the goal. Perhaps you consider the command in this context to be "categorically impossible", but I divided the two types between my first and second categories because I felt there was an important distinction between the paradoxical and the impossible.


3) a command that is possible. 'stand over there'.

A task well within the sims capabilities.

The order to follow another person's commands is in the 3 category. It is not an order that is impossible or paradoxical to achieve.

At those tables where the RAW is interpreted to implicitly forbid transference/sharing of magical control, such an order would not fall into your category 3.


If you could structure a response from your view point using RAW and showing me how your interpretation works using a similar set up to how I have here it would be helpful.

Are you asking me to prove my main argument (linked above), using your style, or are you asking me to prove that there is an implied limitation in the RAW?


My response is "limited" to those points because you're...really not addressing them.

Because, as I explained above, my argument does not hinge on either of those points. I'll try explaining again why they aren't relevant. I'm running out of different ways to explain, so I'll try using symbols this time.

Let A be the proposition that RAW includes an implicit limitation against sharing control. Let B be the set of all orders that the simulacrum is magically compelled to obey. Let B(A) be the set of all orders that the simulacrum is magically compelled to obey, given that A is true. Let C be the order "obey him as if he were me".

My argument is, effectively: "If A, then C is not a member of B(A)."

Your first counterargument is: "Not A!" This is irrelevant, because the truth of A in no way affects my claim, just as the truth of X is irrelevant to determining the truth of "If X, then Y".

Your second counterargument is: "C is a member of B!" This is irrelevant, since my claim relates to B(A), rather than B.


I mean it quite literally. You are not "interpreting" the text. You are ignoring the text and inserting text that is not there.

Unfortunate. I was hoping that you were using the phrase idiomatically. If your definition of an "interpretation" includes only those readings of the RAW that you personally find valid, then I fear we have no basis to find common ground. You are welcome to believe I am wrong. You have gone well past that point, however, and instead appear to be attacking my right to disagree with you.

[wunderkid]

Check out the posts of RedMage125 and Jas61292 in the first two pages of the thread. Those are the arguments that convinced me.

The basic idea is that the spell doesn't explicitly permit transference/sharing of the simulacrum's magically-enforced obedience, and permitting a command to do so based on the "obedient simulacrum" clause is therefore arguably an expansion of the scope of the spell. Furthermore, the immediately-preceding sentence to that clause is: "The simulacrum is friendly to you and creatures you designate." (Emphasis added.) The obedience clause reads: "It obeys your spoken commands..." which notably does not include the emphasized qualifier above. and therefore the obedience provision should (arguably) not be read to say "It obeys your spoken commands, and those of creatures you designate...".



See above for the first, and the examples (which I know you disagree with) can be found here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20683217&postcount=131).



I specifically picked examples that are not simply practically impossible, such as ordering it to kill a golem that is too strong. I agree that those types of tasks would be attempted. Instead I picked examples where, in my opinion, no progress can be made due to the nature of the task. Ordering a simulacrum to "plant this daisy on the moon" may be practically impossible, but the simulacrum could get closer to the goal by (e.g.) researching rocketry. By contrast, ordering the simulacrum to "plant this daisy on the moon" on a world that had no moon cannot be attempted. The simulacrum won't try to plant the daisy on the (non-existent) moon, because nothing it could possibly do will bring it closer to the goal. Perhaps you consider the command in this context to be "categorically impossible", but I divided the two types between my first and second categories because I felt there was an important distinction between the paradoxical and the impossible.



At those tables where the RAW is interpreted to implicitly forbid transference/sharing of magical control, such an order would not fall into your category 3.



Are you asking me to prove my main argument (linked above), using your style, or are you asking me to prove that there is an implied limitation in the RAW?






The basic idea is that the spell doesn't explicitly permit transference/sharing of the simulacrum's magically-enforced obedience, and permitting a command to do so based on the "obedient simulacrum" clause is therefore arguably an expansion of the scope of the spell. Furthermore, the immediately-preceding sentence to that clause is: "The simulacrum is friendly to you and creatures you designate." (Emphasis added.) The obedience clause reads: "It obeys your spoken commands..." which notably does not include the emphasized qualifier above. and therefore the obedience provision should (arguably) not be read to say "It obeys your spoken commands, and those of creatures you designate...".

Firstly because it is not explicitly permitted isnt a basis for an argument. There are one hundred thousand things that the text does not explicitly permit. It does not explicitly permit using the fly spell if prepared, or walking, or basically anything that is not written in the text but is an obvious thing it could do.

As we have said time and time again now there is no transference/sharing of the "magically" enforced obedience. The only magically enforced command that matters is 'follow bobs orders'. Everything Bob says is mundane, but the Sim cannot ignore what he says without breaking your magically enforced command.

The preceding statement refers to a game mechanic. This is why is has to use the key word designate. Because in game telling your sim to be friendly to someone will not enforce the 'friendly' mechanic.

And it doesn't need to state designate in the order part because you are the commander. you can appoint lieutenants, but you cant give an order to force a mechanic of the game world 'Take a reaction during Bobs turn' Neither the character or the simulacrum know what a reaction is in terms of the game mechanic. Not to mention having multiple people with complete control would make many more rules issues. With just the one, he can revoke his commands at any point. so 'follow bobs orders'. bob starts getting too big for his boots. 'stop following bobs orders' bob cries.

it may be the previous sentence, but that doesn't mean in any way that it is tied to the following sentence. They are two distinct points and two distinct mechanics.


------
See above for the first, and the examples (which I know you disagree with) can be found here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20683217&postcount=131).


"Do not obey this order." - this is category 1. Paradoxical.

"Prove that one equals two." - This is impossible. However the simulacrum will put thought into IF it could be possible. If there were any scenario where one does equal two. This is him attempting the task. Catagory 2.

"Regain your expended spell slots." - Once again the simulacrum would think about if it could achieve this. This would be an attempt to complete your wishes, a failed one but nothing stops him thinking. Cat 2

"do not obey my orders" or, more problematically: "do not listen to anything I say" or, even worse: "do not parse anything you hear me say" - do not obey my orders is a paradoxical example as it has to disobey an order to achieve either outcome. 'do not listen' can be achieved via ear plugs and is therefore a valid order. 'do not parse anything you hear me say' is one where it could try to confuse itself as you speak. It is possible to lose track of what someone is saying mid conversation. But its also not something you have direct control over. it could attempt it, but would almost certainly fail. Mostly Cat 1, edging into Cat 2.

"Stop being friendly towards me." - it would stop acting in a friendly manner as has been pointed out humorously by some others. It would not effect the game mechanics as they are not something your character knows. Cat 1 if you are trying to effect the mechanic in some omniscient way, otherwise Cat 3.

"plant this daisy on the moon" on a world that had no moon - youre right on a world that had no moons at all in the universe this would be an impossible order. But it also wouldnt be an order that could be followed. its an order that would sound like this:
"Go plant this daisy on the speurge"
"Whats a speurge?"
"You know, a speurge, its like a thingy, that things, in the thing? Wait, what the hell is a speurge and why am I asking my Sim to plant a daisy on something i made up in my imagination?"

Even in this example the Sim asking 'Whats a speurge' is it attempting to follow your order despite it being impossible.

Also in a world with gods and magic very little is 'impossible' A god for example could give a simulacrum spell slots despite the text of a spell. because a god has that level of power. Seeing how the wish spell is the height of MORTAL power, a god is capable of much more. Hell even the existence of the wish spell means a viable course of action could be to find someone with it and coerce them into casting it to try and achieve the "impossible" task laid out before it.

------
Are you asking me to prove my main argument (linked above), using your style, or are you asking me to prove that there is an implied limitation in the RAW?

I am asking you to using my style show me how the RAW prohibits it. I feel it will help me see exactly how your interpretation of RAW applies.

Basically the text of spell - a situation where the RAW prevents the obeying anothers command.

Is the sim: obeying your spoken commands, moving and acting in accordance with your wishes: by following the order to follow the commands of another person?

Yes.

Is the SIM: obeying your spoken commands, moving and acting in accordance with your wishes: if it refuses the order of another person you have designated?

No.

If the SIM follows an order given to him by a person you have designated obeying your spoken commands?

Yes.

If the SIM refuses to follow an order given to him by someone you have designated is he following your spoken command?

No.

[kaoskonfety]

Master - fine, i'll tell you how to bake the cake.
Sim - ok
Master - blah blah blah, ill be back in 4 hours
...time passes...
Master - where's my cake?
Sim - I don't know how to bake a cake
Master - i TOLD you how to do it?
Sim - I can't learn new skills. You read it off the box.
Master - WELL READ THE ... GODDAMNIT.

This is far funnier than it should be... I know this is because of the rest of the thread, but this is hilarious.

[smcmike]

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Are you asking me to prove my main argument (linked above), using your style, or are you asking me to prove that there is an implied limitation in the RAW?



Because, as I explained above, my argument does not hinge on either of those points. I'll try explaining again why they aren't relevant. I'm running out of different ways to explain, so I'll try using symbols this time.

Let A be the proposition that RAW includes an implicit limitation against sharing control. Let B be the set of all orders that the simulacrum is magically compelled to obey. Let B(A) be the set of all orders that the simulacrum is magically compelled to obey, given that A is true. Let C be the order "obey him as if he were me".

My argument is, effectively: "If A, then C is not a member of B(A)."

Your first counterargument is: "Not A!" This is irrelevant, because the truth of A in no way affects my claim, just as the truth of X is irrelevant to determining the truth of "If X, then Y".

Your second counterargument is: "C is a member of B!" This is irrelevant, since my claim relates to B(A), rather than B.


This actually clears things up quite a bit.

Your argument is definitely valid. It is also completely irrelevant.

No one is disputing that if the text of the spell implied that sharing of control is impossible, then sharing of control would be impossible. The entire argument is with the premise.

So, yes, your "argument" is bulletproof. It just doesn't matter at all.

[Segev]

Because, as I explained above, my argument does not hinge on either of those points. I'll try explaining again why they aren't relevant. I'm running out of different ways to explain, so I'll try using symbols this time.I think the problem is that you're hinging your argument on, "If fly allows you to burrow in the ground, then..."


Let A be the proposition that RAW includes an implicit limitation against sharing control. Let B be the set of all orders that the simulacrum is magically compelled to obey. Let B(A) be the set of all orders that the simulacrum is magically compelled to obey, given that A is true. Let C be the order "obey him as if he were me".

My argument is, effectively: "If A, then C is not a member of B(A)."

Your first counterargument is: "Not A!" This is irrelevant, because the truth of A in no way affects my claim, just as the truth of X is irrelevant to determining the truth of "If X, then Y".My counterargument of "Not A!" is the only thing that's relevant.

I am not saying you can't have a house rule where A is true. But A is not true in the RAW. No valid interpretation of the RAW can derive from A, because !A is the actual true premise.

"There is an implicit limitation against sharing control in the text of simulacrum" is as true as "There is an implicit permission to burrow in the ground in fly." Sure, you can assert those premises. And if you do, the rest of your argument may have grounds. I don't even care to argue the rest of your argument, though, because the moment you assert a premise that is exactly opposite to what the text says, you have created a house rule.

And my only point here is that what you are discussing is a house rule. It is NOT an interpretation of the RAW. It cannot be, because you are asserting A when !A is what the text says.




Unfortunate. I was hoping that you were using the phrase idiomatically. If your definition of an "interpretation" includes only those readings of the RAW that you personally find valid, then I fear we have no basis to find common ground. You are welcome to believe I am wrong. You have gone well past that point, however, and instead appear to be attacking my right to disagree with you.No. I am not attacking your right to disagree with me. I am pointing out that the text says, "Not A," and that no matter how often you say "A," you can't claim that the text contains it and be correct.

You're perfectly free to disagree with me. And in many cases, reasonable people can disagree on an interpretation.

This is not such a case, because you are hinging your argument on "Given A," when the text actually says "Not A."




This is an oversimplification. I can try to break down the logic as you did above. Let's see...


Let Z be: "The simulacrum obeys your verbal orders."
Let Y be: "You are capable of speaking any verbal order that could possibly be typed in this forum post."
Let X be: "You order the simulacrum to obey Bob's every order as if he were you."
Let W be: "The simulacrum disobeys your order."
Let A be: "The simulacrum cannot be commanded to obey orders given by anybody else."
Let B be: "The simulacrum disobeys Bob's order."
Let C be: "The simulacrum can be commanded to do anything not expressly forbidden by the spell."
Let D be: "Even if success at a task is impossible, the simulacrum will do its best to comply, no matter how futile the effort."
Let E be: "The simulacrum is capable of doing anything its original could, except that it cannot regain spell slots (and possibly other resources), and cannot gain levels, and has half the original's hit points so can take half as much punishment."
Let F be: "The simulacrum is capable of obeying Bob's orders to the same extent that it is capable of obeying anybody else's."
Let G be: "The simulacrum's original is capable of obeying Bob's orders to the same extent that he is capable of obeying anybody else's."

We are given Z by the text of the spell.
I assert Y, because nothing seems to be impeding the caster's ability to speak.
We are given E by the text of the spell.
I will assume G, because I can select my simulacrum's original such that it is true.


If Z, then C.
If C, then D.

Because of this, If Z, then D.
D must thus be true, because Z is given as true.
(E and G) is true, by given and assumption.
If (E and G), then F.
F is thus true.

To this point, we have established that, by the givens, assumptions, and assertions above, the simulacrum is capable of obeying Bob's orders as well as he can anybody else's.
If Z, then !W. (If the simulacrum obeys your verbal orders, it cannot disobey them.)
!W, because Z is a given.
If (X and B), then W. (If you order the simulacrum to obey Bob, but it disobeys Bob, then it has disobeyed you.)
If A, then W. (If the simulacrum can't be made to obey Bob, then it will at some point disobey him.)
If !W, then !A.
Therefore, !A.


Now, what you're saying is, "A is given in the text."

However, you don't get to just assert any premise you like without textual backup. Any premise is open to being challenged.

You're right; your interpretation CAN logically follow from the premise, "Given A."

But without specific exceptions to Z - not implicit, but specific - in order to enable A, you cannot have (A and Z) be a true logical statement.

There is no language that says there are exceptions to Z. There is no explicit text stating A. You say it is implied, but you read the implication out of the very sentence that gives Z its blanket truth.



I'm sorry, but you don't get to say, "You must accept my premise!" Your premise is in dispute. I have gone to great pains to demonstrate how there is no A in the text of the spell, explicit or implicit. You must show that your claim that A is implied is true, and does not lead to the contradiction "(A and !A)."

I have demonstrated how "!A" arises from the spell. Therefore, simply asserting "A" creates a contradiction. You cannot infer a premise which is contradicted by logical analysis of the explicit premises.

[KorvinStarmast]

Which means we'll have to have our simulacra have those discussions for us, so they get banned instead of us! (I take it there will be a 33% chance that they will be forever banned each time they do it?) Is that an increase in power or a decrease in power? :smallconfused:

[Segev]

Is that an increase in power or a decrease in power? :smallconfused:

A decrease; they lose the power to post on the board.

[Segev]

I feel like I'm still failing to make my point, even after writing that last lengthy post.

Xetheral, let me try one more time:

If your premise is correct, your argument is fine. If your premise is correct, then sure, you can read the spell to say that.

The trouble is that your premise is not correct. The spell does not say what your premise requires it to. There is no room to interpret your premise into the spell as written. This isn't, "You disagree with me, so you're wrong."

This is...

If I say, "If I am the Emperor of the United States, then everybody has to wear a tuxedo on Tuesdays," we can all agree that, indeed, were I the Emperor of the USA, I would have the power to make such a law. But the moment I assert, "I interpret the Constitution such that I am the Emperor of the USA, therefore by my interpretation of the Constitution, everybody must wear tuxedos on Tuesdays," then I'm wrong, because there is no valid interpretation of the Constitution (as currently written) which requires people to wear tuxedos on Tuesdays. My interpretation is invalid, because it relies on things that the Constitution's explicit premises flatly contradict.

[NewDM]

I personally just think the 5e developers didn't use the right phrasing, I mean they still spell "Spellcaster" and "Spellcasting" without a space between the words. There are spell names and textual errors all throughout the books.

I'd chalk this entire discussion for the last 3 pages up to WotC failure to write English clearly.

[Segev]

I personally just think the 5e developers didn't use the right phrasing, I mean they still spell "Spellcaster" and "Spellcasting" without a space between the words. There are spell names and textual errors all throughout the books.

I'd chalk this entire discussion for the last 3 pages up to WotC failure to write English clearly.

I wouldn't. Creating compound words and using them consistently doesn't back up that point, anyway. And this spell, while it is abusable, is not ambiguous on this point. If it were, I'd be happy to say "sure, that other reading is a valid alternative way to follow the RAW." I may not approve of said interpretation, but I don't have to approve of it for it to be valid.

[Regitnui]

I personally just think the 5e developers didn't use the right phrasing, I mean they still spell "Spellcaster" and "Spellcasting" without a space between the words. There are spell names and textual errors all throughout the books.

I'd chalk this entire discussion for the last 3 pages up to WotC failure to write English clearly.

Actually, I'd say that the books are written quite well, accounting for American spelling variants like 'color' instead of 'colour'. They even use the Oxford comma, which is regarded as more correct. However, they don't use vernacular English in an effort to avoid this sort of ambiguity.It's the same reason legal speak is nigh-incomprehensible to the layman; each term is strictly defined within the law to avoid misunderstandings. In D&D. there's an effort to make every rule as close to RAI as possible while leaving enough leeway for balance.

I'm curious though... How many misspellings have you seen?

[Vogonjeltz]

If you truly read this as a blanket prohibition with no limitations, why do you reject the assertion that the simulacrum is incapable of, say, picking up and using a sword, or donning armor?

Can it cast unseen servant? Comprehend languages? Darkvision? Light?

Because just wielding the sword and wearing the armor aren't gaining power. If the character gained proficiency in those things, that would be an increase in power.

Merriam Webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/power

the ability or right to control people or things


I agree that it should be a construct, but there is no support for this in the text. In fact, it clearly says "it can . . . otherwise be affected as a normal creature." Normal creatures can be cured with cure wounds.

Well, not the normal creatures that are constructs. I think that was my point, it's probably a construct since it's not flesh and blood, but the game doesn't make that very clear.


No spell effect ever increases the power of the caster. It might decrease the caster's power or leave it unchanged, but it never increases it.

Gaining control of a minion that has spell slots would suggest otherwise.


You're either ignoring later posts, or missing them, as I have accepted that you said "they can't get the effect of casting a spell," and gone on to prove that this is a semantic difference only and that the net effect is that they, for all practical purposes, cannot cast spells by your interpretation.

You did not prove a semantic difference at all.

If a Cleric casts Bless on the Simulacrum, it can't benefit from that spell because it represents an increase in power.

If the Simulacrum casts Bless it could benefit 3 other characters, but not itself, because that would represent an increase in power.

There, I drew an obvious conceptual distinction. Semantics is if I were using another definition for the words in question, which I'm not.


Conveniently, casting a spell never increases their power, because by virtue of having the power to cast that spell, they have the power already that is the effect of that spell. Therefore, casting simulacrum does not increase their power, because they already had the power to have a simulacrum by virtue of being able to cast the spell.

No, the effect of the spell is not something they always have on, so no, they don't have the power merely by virtue of being capable of spellcasting.


Please give me an exact quote I may use as the definitive "Vogonjeltz's position," because it seems that my quoting you and responding to it thus far has not qualified as such.

The problem is not quoting me, it's going on to misrepresent the words, or say things that did not actually get written in the quote given, or responding to things that I neither said nor were quoted.


If it can cast the spell simulacrum, then the outcome of that spell is already within its power, by virtue of being able to cast the spell.

Your interpretation leads to the logical conclusions I have already drawn, which you reject in the quotes below.

By that logic the Simulacrum could gain xp, because it already has the power to kill monsters.
Just because it can take the action does not mean it can benefit from said action. That holds true for both XP and Spell outcomes.


"Nuh-uh" isn't a rebuttal, you know.

For reference, what Vogonjeltz is saying is "not how that works at all" is my pointing out that using a sword results in more damage being dealt than the simulacrum could have gotten by using its fist.

If using a spell creates an effect that results in greater power than the caster had before he cast the spell, then using a sword results in an effect (more damage) than the wielder had before he picked up the sword.

Well, insofar as a rebuttal is a refutation or contradiction, yes as a matter of fact it is a rebuttal.

And once again you misrepresent my position. I was responding to the conclusion that damaging something is prohibited by virtue of an opponent being less powerful.

Also, your bolded portion differs from what I was actually responding to, quoted again for reference:


And, since using a sword does more damage than using one's fist, obviously they can pick up a sword, but can't use it. Heck, since damaging one's foe is an increase in one's power over that foe, maybe they can't even punch. Or at least, if they punch, they can't do damage.

If you could avoid tampering with both our positions in the future when claiming to quote them it would be most helpful.


It's semantics, whether you like the "colloquial connotation" or not. Because there is no FUNCTIONAL difference between being unable to cast a spell and being unable to get the effect of the spell.

Of course there is a functional difference, the caster can still cast spells that purely affect other things and which they don't realize a personal gain in power from. That is literally a difference of function. Simulacrum just happens to violate the rule, there are plenty of other spells that don't.


All outcomes of casting a spell increase the simulacrum's power, if you use the definitions you're invoking. Because the effect of a spell is useful, while having an uncast spell slot is not useful until you cast it. Therefore, it is an increase in power to get any effect out of casting a spell.

To argue otherwise does not provide you room to say "this spell is an increase in power, while this one is not." If the simulacrum can cast a spell and get its effect without increasing in power, that means that he had the power to get that effect by virtue of having the spell and requisite slot. It doesn't matter what that spell and its effect is: he has the power to cast it, so he has the power inherent in its effect already at his disposal.

To argue otherwise is to argue that any effect is an increase in power, because he didn't have that effect's benefits before he cast the spell. It is also to argue that wielding a sword results in an effect that is an increase in power, which means he can't use a sword to do damage.

The point is that the spell's outcome doesn't necessarily represent a gain in power for the Simulacrum, by the definition I invoked.

The simulacrum doesn't get the effects of all spells it might cast. For example, a chromatic orb isn't affecting the simulacrum, nor is it a power gain for it. There's plenty of room for differentiation there. You seem stuck on the notion that having the power to cast spell is the same thing as having the spell active, it is not. A Simulacrum can not cast Haste on itself (power increase) but it can cast Haste on an Ally (no power increase for the simulacrum).

Any effect that increases the casters power, not all effects do that. And simply wielding a sword is not an increase in power for a humanoid simulacrum, but gaining proficiency in wielding a sword is (it also violates the prohibition on learning).


I never argued otherwise. I point to that as a guiding example, in fact. You'll note the things that are used as examples represent what is normally termed "character advancement," and where not, it is "recovery mechanics." Nowhere does it say they can't use things they already have at their disposal. That includes spells, and spells include their effects.

Except you stated that you used absolutist phrasing here:


Nonsense. I have spelled out repeatedly what it means. It means the simulacrum cannot gain levels, and, because the spell explicitly calls this out, cannot regain spell slots once they're expended.

Now, you might not have meant that to be read as the beginning and the end of what is prohibited, but you didn't write it that way.

To clear up any confusion...what exactly are you saying is prohibited beyond the level gain and spell refresh? We might as well try to see where the common ground is.


And your reading of the RAW may, in fact, be a valid one. It also is a ludicrous one, since the consequences of that reading being applied consistently mean that it literally cannot do anything. Because anything it does involves learning about a change to the world around it, and doing anything results in an effect which is an increase in its power.

I disagree that it leads to the slippery slope of everything being prohibited. The definition of power doesn't prohibit others or the world being affected, and power isn't defined as relative. If enemies live or die, that has changed nothing about what the Simulacrum is or isn't capable of doing.

Furthermore, if you did define power relatively speaking, it would also prohibit others from taking any action. Why? Because if some random wizard kills another random wizard, who happened to be in any Kevin Bacon way connected to the Simulacrum, it would necessarily shift the global power position of the Simulacrum, which is against the rules! Thankfully, I don't read power as a relative measurement, but an absolute one:

The Simulacrum has the power to do certain things upon creation. At no point is it allowed to gain the power to do other things, nor improve on its initial ability to do the things it can do. So even though it can cast spells, it can't cast spells in such a way that it increases its power, or makes it better at doing something. Simulacrum is basically a glorified puppet. In terms of narrative, it exists so that the creepy Vizier can supplant the King and rule the kingdom by proxy. In the same way that Imprisonment is a whole bunch of fairytale tropes wrapped into one.


No, it's an illusion, made of shadow-stuff (saith the spell). In theory, nothing in the spell says the ice moves when the spell is done being cast. Personally, I think it's meant to, but that's not what the spell says. It also doesn't say it doesn't, so... *shrug*

I don't see anything about shadow stuff, instead "illusory duplicate" and "partially real and formed from ice or snow". The parts "you can repair it" and "it reverts to snow and melts instantly." both suggest (to me at least) that it should count as a construct. As a DM, I'd certainly rule that way (on this basis).


Hey I know, why doesn't someone spam this question on Twitter and get an official response?

Does casting a spell (like Simulacrum) increase a Simulacrum's power and therefore is not allowed?

Good question, but clarify that it's the question of the simulacrum casting the spell (not the actual character).


I personally just think the 5e developers didn't use the right phrasing, I mean they still spell "Spellcaster" and "Spellcasting" without a space between the words. There are spell names and textual errors all throughout the books.

I'd chalk this entire discussion for the last 3 pages up to WotC failure to write English clearly.

According to the Oxford dictionary, it is a word.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/spellcaster

It would be a failure to write clearly in English, unless you were intending to say they misspelled the word "English".

[georgie_leech]

It seems like two different things are being argued here. Xerthal et al. is asserting that their particular interpretation is valid. Which it is, in the logical sense; the conclusion follows from the premises. Segev seems to be arguing about whether or not that interpretation is "true;" that is, if the spell actually works like that. They're arguing that the premise "control of the simulacrum can't be transferred" is a false premise. An argument can be valid but still false, based on the truth of the premises. Am I misunderstanding?

[RickAllison]

So if I'm getting Vogonjeltz's position right, the simulacrum can wield a weapon (and gain the power to deal more damage) but he can't cast Blessed Weapon (because it gives him the power to deal more damage). This is because he already knows how to use the weapon, while he only knows how to use the spell.

Wait? So it has the same effect, the same requirement, but he can do one while he can't do the other? How is there a difference?

[smcmike]

Because just wielding the sword and wearing the armor aren't gaining power. If the character gained proficiency in those things, that would be an increase in power.

Merriam Webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/power

the ability or right to control people or things


If a Cleric casts Bless on the Simulacrum, it can't benefit from that spell because it represents an increase in power.

If the Simulacrum casts Bless it could benefit 3 other characters, but not itself, because that would represent an increase in power.

Of course there is a functional difference, the caster can still cast spells that purely affect other things and which they don't realize a personal gain in power from. That is literally a difference of function. Simulacrum just happens to violate the rule, there are plenty of other spells that don't.

The point is that the spell's outcome doesn't necessarily represent a gain in power for the Simulacrum, by the definition I invoked.

The simulacrum doesn't get the effects of all spells it might cast. For example, a chromatic orb isn't affecting the simulacrum, nor is it a power gain for it. There's plenty of room for differentiation there. You seem stuck on the notion that having the power to cast spell is the same thing as having the spell active, it is not. A Simulacrum can not cast Haste on itself (power increase) but it can cast Haste on an Ally (no power increase for the simulacrum).

Any effect that increases the casters power, not all effects do that. And simply wielding a sword is not an increase in power for a humanoid simulacrum, but gaining proficiency in wielding a sword is (it also violates the prohibition on learning).

I disagree that it leads to the slippery slope of everything being prohibited. The definition of power doesn't prohibit others or the world being affected, and power isn't defined as relative. If enemies live or die, that has changed nothing about what the Simulacrum is or isn't capable of doing.

The Simulacrum has the power to do certain things upon creation. At no point is it allowed to gain the power to do other things, nor improve on its initial ability to do the things it can do. So even though it can cast spells, it can't cast spells in such a way that it increases its power, or makes it better at doing something. Simulacrum is basically a glorified puppet. In terms of narrative, it exists so that the creepy Vizier can supplant the King and rule the kingdom by proxy. In the same way that Imprisonment is a whole bunch of fairytale tropes wrapped into one.


It's interesting that you quote a definition from the dictionary (which is something that should only be used as a last resort, in my humble opinion), then basically ignore that definition, in favor of a more game-focused definition.

By this I mean that Bless does not give the sim the ability or right to control people or things.

On the other hand, replacing the King most certainly provides the sim with the ability or right to control people or things.

Which is to say that "power" is a maddeningly ambiguous word. I'm in favor of Seg's limited interpretation simply because of simplicity - what spells, exactly, are allowed?

Mage hand?
Suggestion?
True strike?

[JoeJ]

Gaining control of a minion that has spell slots would suggest otherwise.

No it doesn't. Casting a spell never increases the caster's power in the slightest. All it can do is change the form of a power the caster already had.

Now recovering an expended spell slot, that does increase the caster's power.

[wunderkid]

The basic idea is that the spell doesn't explicitly permit transference/sharing of the simulacrum's magically-enforced obedience, and permitting a command to do so based on the "obedient simulacrum" clause is therefore arguably an expansion of the scope of the spell. Furthermore, the immediately-preceding sentence to that clause is: "The simulacrum is friendly to you and creatures you designate." (Emphasis added.) The obedience clause reads: "It obeys your spoken commands..." which notably does not include the emphasized qualifier above.

I just wanted to backtrack to here quickly.

Basically what this text here says is that you're not using RAW.

You are ASSUMING that the omission of the word obedience was done purposely.

That means you are guessing that the INTENT was that you can't issue commands that would allow another to issue orders.

You my friend are using RAI and claiming it RAW.

[RickAllison]

It's interesting that you quote a definition from the dictionary (which is something that should only be used as a last resort, in my humble opinion), then basically ignore that definition, in favor of a more game-focused definition.

By this I mean that Bless does not give the sim the ability or right to control people or things.

On the other hand, replacing the King most certainly provides the sim with the ability or right to control people or things.

Which is to say that "power" is a maddeningly ambiguous word. I'm in favor of Seg's limited interpretation simply because of simplicity - what spells, exactly, are allowed?

Mage hand?
Suggestion?
True strike?

Mage Hand gives the power to control items from afar, so no go on that by his definition.

Suggestion gives the power to control a person, so no go.

True Strike might be okay. It is only allowing one to attack a target.

Ooooo, I thought of another reason why his interpretation of using spell effects as an increase in power but only that make no sense! If "control over power or things" is what you are defining, he is unable to pick up some weapons period. The hooked shortspear lets the user control the movement of an enemy. Thus, picking it up would be an increase in power. So he can pick up some weapons, but not others?

[krugaan]

Is it permissible at this point to start injecting jokes into this thread? or is this conversation actually going to progress anywhere?

[Vogonjeltz]

It's interesting that you quote a definition from the dictionary (which is something that should only be used as a last resort, in my humble opinion), then basically ignore that definition, in favor of a more game-focused definition.

By this I mean that Bless does not give the sim the ability or right to control people or things.

On the other hand, replacing the King most certainly provides the sim with the ability or right to control people or things.

Which is to say that "power" is a maddeningly ambiguous word. I'm in favor of Seg's limited interpretation simply because of simplicity - what spells, exactly, are allowed?

Mage hand?
Suggestion?
True strike?

Bless improves its ability to attack. It's about as clear cut as it gets.

I provided the first definition listed precisely because there was a question as to if controlling a minion constitutes power, that definition lays bare that it is absolutely a power increase to gain a minion.

If you want to categorize it, I think a reasonable test would ask the question: Does this buff the caster? If the answer is yes then that's probably running afoul of the rule.


Is it permissible at this point to start injecting jokes into this thread? or is this conversation actually going to progress anywhere?

I don't know offhand, what do the forum rules happen to say about derailing and thread crapping?

[krugaan]

I don't know offhand, what do the forum rules happen to say about derailing and thread crapping?

Sigh, fine.

Obviously everything is hinging on the definition of "power" and gaining it.

Any reasonable interpretation of this word will make that viewpoint valid, the only thing to argue about it consistency here.

I'm of the "power as CR" type thought.

edit: I should make a better effort to contribute here

Current Definitions of Power:

- CR
- combat ability
- influence
- almost literally anything
- energy applied per unit time

what other valid definitions are there?

[RickAllison]

Sigh, fine.

Obviously everything is hinging on the definition of "power" and gaining it.

Any reasonable interpretation of this word will make that viewpoint valid, the only thing to argue about it consistency here.

I'm of the "power as CR" type thought.

Indeed. The problem isn't so much the restriction as it is that it is being applied inconsistently and illogically. If we applied the strict restrictions he proposes as is consistent with the terminology, the simulacrum is incapable of anything.

[smcmike]

Bless improves its ability to attack. It's about as clear cut as it gets.

I provided the first definition listed precisely because there was a question as to if controlling a minion constitutes power, that definition lays bare that it is absolutely a power increase to gain a minion.

If you want to categorize it, I think a reasonable test would ask the question: Does this buff the caster? If the answer is yes then that's probably running afoul of the rule.

So you use one definition to knock down one spell, and another to knock down a different one. I'm really struggling to see how wearing armor (or REPLACING A KING) doesn't qualify under such malleable definitions.

What about the spells I asked about? How about disguise self?

And jokes improve threads.

[krugaan]

And jokes improve threads.

Sometimes, if people are being too serious.

I mean, serious discussion is great, but it's easy to get bogged down in minutiae and lose sight of the big picture.

But, if you like that sort of thing, hey, more power to ya...

:smallamused:

... unless you're a simulacrum.

:smallcool:

[2D8HP]

{Scrubbed}

[Knaight]

Bless improves its ability to attack. It's about as clear cut as it gets.

Bless improves its ability to attack in exchange for a spell slot. As bless is theoretically worth a spell slot, that's not an increase so much as a trade. It's like how if you drop something off a cliff, it doesn't increase in energy, it just trades potential energy for kinetic energy, and then kinetic energy for thermal energy.

[RickAllison]

Bless improves its ability to attack in exchange for a spell slot. As bless is theoretically worth a spell slot, that's not an increase so much as a trade. It's like how if you drop something off a cliff, it doesn't increase in energy, it just trades potential energy for kinetic energy, and then kinetic energy for thermal energy.

That's what we've been trying to convey for a while now. It seems he does not agree with the idea.

Vogonjeltz, consider this viewpoint: using he spells lot actually makes the simulacrum less powerful. Think about it, seriously now. Before he used the spell slot, he had the power to turn that slot into anything he had the knowledge to cast. He had the power of any and every spell he knew cast-able in that slot. Once he casts it, he is sacrificing the power to use the other spells in that slot. He does not gain power by the spell's effect, he is sacrificing power he already had in exchange for a lesser amount of it in a new form.

For example, a simulacrum is told to cast Shapechange into an ancient dragon. Compared to the raw body of the caster, it seems an upgrade. However, to do he has given up the power to cast a Wish to resurrect an ally, Imprisonment to bind entities, and literally every spell he has prepared.

So that's why we are arguing this way, V. In physics terms, each spell slot is a source of magical potential energy, like gasoline is chemical potential energy. It can be converted into mechanical, electrical, thermal, or another form of potential energy, but the process of conversion renders less energy than it had before.

EDIT: While this holds for just about every spell, this does pose issues with Simulacrum chains. That whole concept is cheesy enough on its own and I doubt that it's RAI (even if it is RAW), so it might be outside this discussion.

[Xetheral]

It seems like two different things are being argued here. Xerthal et al. is asserting that their particular interpretation is valid. Which it is, in the logical sense; the conclusion follows from the premises. Segev seems to be arguing about whether or not that interpretation is "true;" that is, if the spell actually works like that. They're arguing that the premise "control of the simulacrum can't be transferred" is a false premise. An argument can be valid but still false, based on the truth of the premises. Am I misunderstanding?

Hopefully that's a more concise and understandable explanation of the disconnect that I've been able to manage. Thank you! :smallsmile: (I'd quibble slightly on the phrasing--my argument is technically inductive rather than deductive (this is textual interpretation after all), so the idea of "validity" doesn't strictly apply--but hopefully your explanation will nevertheless make more sense than my attempts have!)


This actually clears things up quite a bit.

Your argument is definitely valid. It is also completely irrelevant.

No one is disputing that if the text of the spell implied that sharing of control is impossible, then sharing of control would be impossible. The entire argument is with the premise.

So, yes, your "argument" is bulletproof. It just doesn't matter at all.

(Emphasis added.) The main reason I made my argument in the first place was because posters appeared to be disputing just that. Indeed, as recently as here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20690963&postcount=209), Segev asserts that the spell "would have to have explicit text allowing it to violate your orders if your orders give another creature authority over it." That's why I feel my argument was, and remains, relevant.


I think the problem is that you're hinging your argument on, "If fly allows you to burrow in the ground, then..."

My counterargument of "Not A!" is the only thing that's relevant.


If your premise is correct, your argument is fine. If your premise is correct, then sure, you can read the spell to say that.

Does georgie_leech's explanation of our disconnect make it clear why the "validity" of my argument does not hinge on whether or not there is an implicit limitation in the text?

If not, remember that I'm not trying to prove that "C is not a member of B(A)" based on "A". I'm trying to prove (or, more precisely, argue that it is reasonable) that "If A, then C is not a member of B(A)." based on my examination of the other limitations of B and B(A) (as described in my categories of examples here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20683217&postcount=131)).



Let Z be: "The simulacrum obeys your verbal orders."
Let Y be: "You are capable of speaking any verbal order that could possibly be typed in this forum post."
Let X be: "You order the simulacrum to obey Bob's every order as if he were you."
Let W be: "The simulacrum disobeys your order."
Let A be: "The simulacrum cannot be commanded to obey orders given by anybody else."
Let B be: "The simulacrum disobeys Bob's order."
Let C be: "The simulacrum can be commanded to do anything not expressly forbidden by the spell."
Let D be: "Even if success at a task is impossible, the simulacrum will do its best to comply, no matter how futile the effort."
Let E be: "The simulacrum is capable of doing anything its original could, except that it cannot regain spell slots (and possibly other resources), and cannot gain levels, and has half the original's hit points so can take half as much punishment."
Let F be: "The simulacrum is capable of obeying Bob's orders to the same extent that it is capable of obeying anybody else's."
Let G be: "The simulacrum's original is capable of obeying Bob's orders to the same extent that he is capable of obeying anybody else's."

We are given Z by the text of the spell.
I assert Y, because nothing seems to be impeding the caster's ability to speak.
We are given E by the text of the spell.
I will assume G, because I can select my simulacrum's original such that it is true.


If Z, then C.
If C, then D.

Because of this, If Z, then D.
D must thus be true, because Z is given as true.
(E and G) is true, by given and assumption.
If (E and G), then F.
F is thus true.

To this point, we have established that, by the givens, assumptions, and assertions above, the simulacrum is capable of obeying Bob's orders as well as he can anybody else's.
If Z, then !W. (If the simulacrum obeys your verbal orders, it cannot disobey them.)
!W, because Z is a given.
If (X and B), then W. (If you order the simulacrum to obey Bob, but it disobeys Bob, then it has disobeyed you.)
If A, then W. (If the simulacrum can't be made to obey Bob, then it will at some point disobey him.)
If !W, then !A.
Therefore, !A.

I disagree that "E is given by the text of the spell". I interpret the text differently than you do. In particular I believe that your list of exceptions is incomplete. For example, although the spell itself doesn't say it explicitly, it is implicit that the simulacrum can't give itself orders.
C does not follow merely as a logical consequence of Z. Accordingly, you'd need to offer extrinsic evidence to support the claim, and even then people may disagree with you about the quality of your evidence.
D does not follow merely as a logical consequence of C. You'd need to provide evidence as above. On top of that, I disagree that it is possible to "do one's best" to accomplish a task that one knows is not merely too difficult to accomplish, but rather is impossible to make any progress on at all.
Logically, (E and G) does not imply F, because E contains exceptions and limitations (some of which you listed) that you have failed to carry through and apply to F.

No. I am not attacking your right to disagree with me. I am pointing out that the text says, "Not A," and that no matter how often you say "A," you can't claim that the text contains it and be correct.

You're perfectly free to disagree with me. And in many cases, reasonable people can disagree on an interpretation.

This is not such a case, because you are hinging your argument on "Given A," when the text actually says "Not A."

I flat-out disagree with your claim that "the text actually says "Not A."" I instead believe that both interpretations are reasonable. I therefore cannot accept your conclusion that this is not a case where reasonable people can disagree. When you, knowing that I disagree, nevertheless claim that this is not a case where reasonable people can disagree, you are, implicitly, calling me unreasonable.

When I disagree with your (or any poster's) interpretation of the text, I either assume that one or both of us has failed to understand the other's point of view, or, if disagreement appears to persist past mutual comprehension, I do you the courtesy of inferring that the text has now been demonstrated to have multiple interpretations, no matter how vehemently I disagree with your analysis. (After all, despite my subjective opinion, I fundamentally lack any objective method of determining which of two competing interpretations is superior.) I read your words not only as failing to show me the same respect, but additionally as going out of your way to emphasize that lack of respect by saying things such as "this is a not a matter for interpretation". I enjoy discussing dungeons and dragons with you because I think you have valuable insights that I am interested in hearing. While I know that you do not intend any disrespect, I would nevertheless enjoy our discussions more if you would please avoid using that and similar phrases in the future.


[I]Firstly because it is not explicitly permitted isnt a basis for an argument.

When it is contended that there exists an implicit restriction, the fact that there is not explicit permission is extremely relevant to evaluating the claim.


As we have said time and time again now there is no transference/sharing of the "magically" enforced obedience. The only magically enforced command that matters is 'follow bobs orders'. Everything Bob says is mundane, but the Sim cannot ignore what he says without breaking your magically enforced command.

In my opinion, that counts as transference/sharing because it achieves a (nearly) functionally identical result.


The preceding statement refers to a game mechanic. This is why is has to use the key word designate. Because in game telling your sim to be friendly to someone will not enforce the 'friendly' mechanic.

I disagree. I think the friendly mechanic is a reasonable-enough analogue to colloquial notions of what it means to be "friendly" that the mechanical effect would apply to such an order.


And it doesn't need to state designate in the order part because you are the commander. you can appoint lieutenants, but you cant give an order to force a mechanic of the game world 'Take a reaction during Bobs turn' Neither the character or the simulacrum know what a reaction is in terms of the game mechanic.

I disagree. Given that later in the sentence containing the obedience clause it explicitly mentions "moving and acting in accordance with your wishes and acting on your turn in combat", it is implicit that if the simulacrum is capable of taking reactions when it isn't your turn, then the simulacrum can be ordered to do so, regardless of an IC/OCC divide between in-game descriptions and the keywords used in combat.


it may be the previous sentence, but that doesn't mean in any way that it is tied to the following sentence. They are two distinct points and two distinct mechanics.

I rarely find treating adjacent sentences as utterly unrelated to be useful in textual interpretation. To do so would be to go against every rule of textual interpretation I've ever seen. Your approach would be more analogous to interpreting computer code, where adjacent lines have no bearing on each other unless formulated in a way to make that dependence explicit. When parsing written text that approach ignores the fact that context is critical to interpretation.


(Your discussion of my examples.

We are interpreting the notion of what it means to "attempt" a task very differently, and that explains our different perspective on my examples.


I am asking you to using my style show me how the RAW prohibits it. I feel it will help me see exactly how your interpretation of RAW applies.

I am not arguing that the RAW prohibits transference/sharing of control. I am arguing that if it were to be interpreted as such, then such a restriction could reasonably take precedence over the general requirement of obedience. (Additionally, I believe it is reasonable to read the RAW to include such a limitation, although, as stated, that is not a precondition of my argument.)


I just wanted to backtrack to here quickly.

Basically what this text here says is that you're not using RAW.

You are ASSUMING that the omission of the word obedience was done purposely.

That means you are guessing that the INTENT was that you can't issue commands that would allow another to issue orders.

You my friend are using RAI and claiming it RAW.

Actually, I hadn't even considered yet what I think the designers intended. At the moment, I think it's more likely that, if they thought about it at all, they did intend casters to be able to transfer control. But I reserve the right to change my mind after more consideration. Normal RAW analysis includes inferences and implications. If you exclude those you are intstead in the realm of "Literal RAW".

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Locked for review. This thread is going to stay locked. Knowing that not every violation was scrubbed. Per the Forum Rules, do not start additional threads on this topic.