Wish + Simulacrum with sensible ruling still OP?

[stenver]

So let's assume DM disallows any unreasonable rulings regarding Wish + simulacrum clone army.

Wish still is, in my experience, the most potent 9th level spell by far. Having a party which includes 1 bard, wizard and sorcerer, the players have opted to use wish every day to create a simulacrum. This effectively doubles their casting slots and actions.

How have others dealt with this?

[Sigreid]

Be glad the party isn't clever enough to create simulacra to give everyone in the party resistance to all damage types?

[Mith]

If a player asks if they can try to get multiple Simulacrums with this method, I will ask if they know the Origins of Shadow Monsters. If they do not take the hint, then any other Simulacrum created by a Simulacrum turns into a Shadow monster as there is no Soul for the secondary Simulacrum to take root from. This Shadow creature is not bound by the rules of the spell for it's creation and proceeds to attack the caster if they are in its presence due to it being an undead that hates the living.

If there is no specific rules to counteract problems, develop your own. Give sufficient warnings that nothing will be gained going such a route, but if they insist, then they have these consequences. It's not in the rules that this happens, but it is in the rule that a wizard only has 1 Simulacrum under their control at a time.

[Sigreid]

If a player asks if they can try to get multiple Simulacrums with this method, I will ask if they know the Origins of Shadow Monsters. If they do not take the hint, then any other Simulacrum created by a Simulacrum turns into a Shadow monster as there is no Soul for the secondary Simulacrum to take root from. This Shadow creature is not bound by the rules of the spell for it's creation and proceeds to attack the caster if they are in its presence due to it being an undead that hates the living.

If there is no specific rules to counteract problems, develop your own. Give sufficient warnings that nothing will be gained going such a route, but if they insist, then they have these consequences. It's not in the rules that this happens, but it is in the rule that a wizard only has 1 Simulacrum under their control at a time.

I don't think that is what he was saying. I think he was saying that each of them can cast wish. So each was creating their own duplicate to have help the party for a day. Think 3 high level spellcaster henchmen every day.

[Breaklance]

oh nvm no clone armies

Create a subplot where the simulacrums slowly gain consciousness and freedom of thought and then decide they want to take the place of the originals (the pcs). So like everytime they make a simalcrum its the same soul or mind of consciousness that inhabits the body hence allowing this to potentially happen

[Sigreid]

oh nvm no clone armies

Create a subplot where the simulacrums slowly gain consciousness and freedom of thought and then decide they want to take the place of the originals (the pcs). So like everytime they make a simalcrum its the same soul or mind of consciousness that inhabits the body hence allowing this to potentially happen

Funny you should mention that. In AD&D the clone spell specified that if it was cast to duplicate someone who is alive the clone would be identical in all ways, except aware of the original and with a burning need to kill the original so they could take their rightful place as the "real" one.

As I said in my first reply, the biggest danger I see is them figuring out that by having 2 of them clone the third with wish prepared they can start getting resistance to all damage types pretty quickly with no risk of loosing wish. "B&*#$ Stewie, wish for me to have resistance to slashing damage"

[Breaklance]

Funny you should mention that. In AD&D the clone spell specified that if it was cast to duplicate someone who is alive the clone would be identical in all ways, except aware of the original and with a burning need to kill the original so they could take their rightful place as the "real" one.

As I said in my first reply, the biggest danger I see is them figuring out that by having 2 of them clone the third with wish prepared they can start getting resistance to all damage types pretty quickly with no risk of loosing wish. "B&*#$ Stewie, wish for me to have resistance to slashing damage"

Pull out the doctor who shenanigans? Have a cleric npc appear warning the team that so many wishes in such a short time on the same people is tearing apart the fabric of reality. Then create fun quest line where they do this, the gods are pissed, the fae are pissed, the dragons are mad as hell and demons and elementals roam freely between planes. So everyone wants to kill the PCs for destroying reality and the things that don't still want to kill them because it's fun.

If I were to make this quest I would literally make it impossible to complete as in they have a goal to fix reality but will never get there. And when they finally die in a fiery blaze they wake up back in front of the cleric npc saying don't destroy reality. Hopefully they learn their lesson and don't try to do it all over again.

[Mith]

If they are only creating a Simulacrum every day using wish to bypass casting time and materials, then they will only ever have one Simulacrum at a time, then they risk a 33% chance of losing access to Wish forever if I remember the rules correctly. If they are trying to get multiple Simulacra under their control, then you get Shadows.

Most situations I hear about Wish and Simulacrum is the second variety.

[Sigreid]

If they are only creating a Simulacrum every day using wish to bypass casting time and materials, then they will only ever have one Simulacrum at a time, then they risk a 33% chance of losing access to Wish forever if I remember the rules correctly. If they are trying to get multiple Simulacra under their control, then you get Shadows.

Most situations I hear about Wish and Simulacrum is the second variety.

Duplicating a lower level spell is on the safe list that causes you no damage and no chance of loss.

[Mith]

I see. I had thought that it applied to all castings to make you consider if the casting was worth it. I guess it works as a final spell that makes the caster seem like a master of Magic as he has one spell that allows him to duplicate any spell in the game, even if they didn't have access to it until late game.

I guess then you will either have word of the party fighting using clones spread and then their opponents prepare against a greater number of combatants. Wish is a wild card for a party to have. However, they do not have it until pretty late game, so unless you play a lot of 17-20 level, it shouldn't be the greatest concern.

[Zalabim]

If you allow the simulacrum the memories of the original, ask the player this question: "What would you do if a spellcaster dominated you, killed you ever night, and resurrected you every morning while using you for the most menial and suicidal tasks throughout the day?" Then do that as 1) the casters experience how the party treats simulacrums and 2) the simulacrum wakes up with all that knowledge every time.

[stenver]

Be glad the party isn't clever enough to create simulacra to give everyone in the party resistance to all damage types?

That can't happen - the way we have ruled is that once you cast wish, the Simulacrum is exact duplicate of you !After! casting the spell - i.e. it has no 9th level spell slots left.


If you allow the simulacrum the memories of the original, ask the player this question: "What would you do if a spellcaster dominated you, killed you ever night, and resurrected you every morning while using you for the most menial and suicidal tasks throughout the day?" Then do that as 1) the casters experience how the party treats simulacrums and 2) the simulacrum wakes up with all that knowledge every time.

Hah, reminds me of Westworld


I guess then you will either have word of the party fighting using clones spread and then their opponents prepare against a greater number of combatants. Wish is a wild card for a party to have. However, they do not have it until pretty late game, so unless you play a lot of 17-20 level, it shouldn't be the greatest concern.

The entire party is level 19 this point, so :)


I don't think that is what he was saying. I think he was saying that each of them can cast wish. So each was creating their own duplicate to have help the party for a day. Think 3 high level spellcaster henchmen every day.

Jep, exactly. I can always take it into account and simply double the enemies, but was curious if somebody else has had to deal with this

[Vogonjeltz]

So let's assume DM disallows any unreasonable rulings regarding Wish + simulacrum clone army.

Wish still is, in my experience, the most potent 9th level spell by far. Having a party which includes 1 bard, wizard and sorcerer, the players have opted to use wish every day to create a simulacrum. This effectively doubles their casting slots and actions.

How have others dealt with this?

This is something only happening at the highest levels of play, where aoe can well exceed the sims paltry hp also dispel magic.

[Segev]

Honestly, everyone suggesting punishments for this are better off just banning simulacrum.

[Sigreid]

That can't happen - the way we have ruled is that once you cast wish, the Simulacrum is exact duplicate of you !After! casting the spell - i.e. it has no 9th level spell slots left.


What I was saying is Bard casts wish to duplicate Wizard. Wizard's duplicate uses their wish. Over the course of several days they could do the resistance thing. Unless you're saying you guys ruled that they can only duplicate themselves.

[Mith]

Honestly, everyone suggesting punishments for this are better off just banning simulacrum.


For this specific case, I would say just plan for it as a DM. High level opponents can gain information to counter the party.

For using Wish to Simulacrum a Simulacrum, that is where my idea comes into play, since that plan tries to bypass the one Simulacrum per caster rule.

[Sigreid]

For this specific case, I would say just plan for it as a DM. High level opponents can gain information to counter the party.

For using Wish to Simulacrum a Simulacrum, that is where my idea comes into play, since that plan tries to bypass the one Simulacrum per caster rule.

Amusingly enough in one of their published adventures WoTC has chosen to create a version of the spell that breaks that limit all on its own.

[Squiddish]

If you have two casters, or one caster with twelve hours to burn, you can make loops. Each simulacrum uses wish to duplicate the person who it is a duplicate of. Alternately, if you have two casters willing to spend twelve hours each, you could make two loops, constructing either armies or just a massive number of wish spells. If they use this once or twice when in dire straits, let them have it and give them a warning. If they use it too much, it's time for divine intervention. Or just antimagic fields.

[Irreverent Fool]

When a party gains access to 9th level spells, they shouldn't be punished for using the spells creatively. These are the types of magic that can alter a world substantially. At this level of play, the game is built such that the expectation should be to face inter-planar and dimensional threats.

As a DM, I am overjoyed when my players start using their powers in this way. Rather than making the spells backfire in some way outside of the rules, their displays of power and prowess draw the attentions of those around them. It may be near-diety level baddies seeking to eliminate a powerful threat, or the king of the genies asking for assistance in the inter planar war with the efreeti.

If they are level 19, let them use their epic powers and face them with epic challenges. Have them face a party of class-leveled NPCs who see what tricks they are using and then learn to employ them themselves. After all, if the PCs figured it out, an NPC can too.

[JAL_1138]

Would making Simulacrum a 9th-level spell solve most of the shenanigan potential the spell has?

[Squiddish]

Would making Simulacrum a 9th-level spell solve most of the shenanigan potential the spell has?

Yeah, but it would put the brakes on a lot of non-shenanigan uses. In all but a few circumstances you have better things to spend your 9th level slot on.

[jas61292]

Yeah, but it would put the brakes on a lot of non-shenanigan uses. In all but a few circumstances you have better things to spend your 9th level slot on.

While this is somewhat true, unlike most other 9th level spell uses, you can just make your simulacrum on your days off and still have them be just as effective.

Also, in what I think is a great side effect of making it 9th level, a simulacrum would never have access to 9th level spells, which, in addition to removing most kinds of abuse, also makes it so a simulacrum is always going to be a slightly inferior caster.

With that said though, I just think simulacrum is a horribly made spell, and would rather completely overhaul it or just remove it from the game.

[Squiddish]

While this is somewhat true, unlike most other 9th level spell uses, you can just make your simulacrum on your days off and still have them be just as effective.

Also, in what I think is a great side effect of making it 9th level, a simulacrum would never have access to 9th level spells, which, in addition to removing most kinds of abuse, also makes it so a simulacrum is always going to be a slightly inferior caster.

With that said though, I just think simulacrum is a horribly made spell, and would rather completely overhaul it or just remove it from the game.

If 5e had a proper set of rules for making constructs I would be inclined to agree with you, but sadly simulacrum is the closest you'll get to having a magical robo-butler (For now...)

[Breaklance]

Honestly, everyone suggesting punishments for this are better off just banning simulacrum.

I'd be fine with them using it occasionally or even just one of the party using it all the time but basically the whole party using wish to double the party every day is a different slice of cheddar.

I feel like wish is such a powerful spell it should be a "oh crap" or "everybody panic" type trump card to keep reserved. I suggested ways to discourage them from spamming the spell every chance they get without pulling the "stop it cause DM says so"

If the op doesn't want to go that route I'd suggest throwing in lots of enemies with mind controlling aspects or something that could possess their simalcrums. Wouldn't necessarily be saying "stop it or else" but more so then your creating an arms race of your PCs coming up with strategies and you counter strategies.

Imo you should be adjusting to your players but shouldnt be letting them dictate the encounters you throw at them because of how they're taking advantage of rules.

[jas61292]

If 5e had a proper set of rules for making constructs I would be inclined to agree with you, but sadly simulacrum is the closest you'll get to having a magical robo-butler (For now...)

Well... there is Unseen Servant for most of your butler needs....

But yeah, I get what you are saying. And I have no problem with what the description of simulacrum leads me to believe it was its intended use: copying other people for the purpose of social interactions. Really, you only ever see problems when people approach the spell as "double my spells and actions" rather than "create a fake copy of a person under my control"

[SharkForce]

well, to reign in simulacrum a bit, you could go back to 2nd (and probably earlier) and require 3 spells to properly give it full power.

once upon a time, it required the simulacrum spell to provide the form with basically just some hit points, attributes, and movement modes, then you needed a limited wish to give it the memories and power of the original, and a reincarnation to give it a life force, to get even part of the power of the original (reincarnation is not a wizard spell any more, and limited wish doesn't exist, so the closest equivalents imo would be clone to give it a life force and wish to give it the memories and power of the original i would say). if you require the last two to be cast immediately in sequence (and both from the original caster of the simulacrum spell), they won't be able to get a free full power instant simulacrum (they'll have to pay for the clone spell, whcih also takes an hour to cast), and it will be difficult and time-consuming to replace their spellcasting simulacrum once it is used up. and as soon as they start the process of replacing their old simulacrum, the old one is destroyed and they have a new one with no useful skills or spells to help them out. not to mention the clone spell requires a large expensive non-expended component in addition to an expensive consumed component, which means they're not likely to have the means to cast clone in the field at all.

[Malifice]

The obvious answer is for the DM to control the Simulacrum. As he should anyway.

Run it as a friendly NPC that (while loyal to the caster and bound to follow his orders) has a mind of its own and freedom to interpret those orders as it sees fit.

[Zalabim]

As another angle of advice, the Simulacrum's HP and HP recovery limits how much impact it can have in combat. If a rigorous adventure takes a PC's HP, and their hit dice, and maybe some healing resources from spell slots or potions, to handle four or five fights, then how far is a simulacrum with half the HP, no hit dice, none of its own magic items, and questionable access to magical healing going to get? If it helps them destroy one fight a day, they're using a 9th level spell. Out of combat, it's nice to get utility spell casts without depleting your own pool of spell slots, but you still have to prepare the spells you want it to cast that day. I'd consider it another in the line of extremely long-duration extremely powerful utility magics that wizards get in their 6th+ level spell list.

[Segev]

I'd be fine with them using it occasionally or even just one of the party using it all the time but basically the whole party using wish to double the party every day is a different slice of cheddar.If you have a party with at least one 9th level spell per party member, then why is this a problem? They're already massively powerful.


I feel like wish is such a powerful spell it should be a "oh crap" or "everybody panic" type trump card to keep reserved. I suggested ways to discourage them from spamming the spell every chance they get without pulling the "stop it cause DM says so"Why? Wish is weaker than many 9th level spells, unless they use the "1/3 chance to lose it forever" version (which, as a side note, I think is a TERRIBLE mechanic that only encourages things like 'the simulacrum trick').

[Asmotherion]

This again? -_-

The 20 level moon druid can have literally infinite HP

The 20 level barbarian can rage all day

The 20 level fighter can have up to 16 attacks per turn with action surge

Why oh why is is such an issue that an Arcane Spellcaster can have something amazing as well? At that level all characters are amazing.

A simulacrum army may be too much, but the DM can disguss this with the player and tell him the limit he wants them to have beforehand. No need for fancy rules here.

Also, what people tend to forget is that:
A simulacrum cast through wish has no access to wish (logically enough). Thus must pay to cast simulacrum,
A simulacrum cast through simulacrum takes time and money to make. During that time, something could go terribly wrong, like enemies attacking or some other distraction preventing the full casting.

This is a nice way to control the number of simulacrum made. Now, if you have discused you are not comfortable with the infinite loop of simulacrum with the player, and he still insists to abuse his power, you are free to do so too as well... You are the DM after all: You can have meteors crush into the PC's location, and force them to use wish several times to stay alive. Done.

[Segev]

This again? -_-

The 20 level moon druid can have literally infinite HP

The 20 level barbarian can rage all day

The 20 level fighter can have up to 16 attacks per turn with action surge

Why oh why is is such an issue that an Arcane Spellcaster can have something amazing as well? At that level all characters are amazing.

A simulacrum army may be too much, but the DM can disguss this with the player and tell him the limit he wants them to have beforehand. No need for fancy rules here. And the time it takes to make them, combined with their inability to recover spells slots, means that this army is less impressive than advertised, anyway.


Also, what people tend to forget is that:
A simulacrum cast through wish has no access to wish (logically enough).
Not entirely accurate. All it takes is two casters with wish working together. Bob casts wish to make a simulacrum of Joe. Simulacrum!Joe now has wish available. Tomorrow, Joe does the same to make Simulacrum!Bob, which will have wish available.

[SharkForce]

This again? -_-

The 20 level moon druid can have literally infinite HP

The 20 level barbarian can rage all day

The 20 level fighter can have up to 16 attacks per turn with action surge

Why oh why is is such an issue that an Arcane Spellcaster can have something amazing as well? At that level all characters are amazing.

A simulacrum army may be too much, but the DM can disguss this with the player and tell him the limit he wants them to have beforehand. No need for fancy rules here.

Also, what people tend to forget is that:
A simulacrum cast through wish has no access to wish (logically enough). Thus must pay to cast simulacrum,
A simulacrum cast through simulacrum takes time and money to make. During that time, something could go terribly wrong, like enemies attacking or some other distraction preventing the full casting.

This is a nice way to control the number of simulacrum made. Now, if you have discused you are not comfortable with the infinite loop of simulacrum with the player, and he still insists to abuse his power, you are free to do so too as well... You are the DM after all: You can have meteors crush into the PC's location, and force them to use wish several times to stay alive. Done.

you clearly did not actually even get as far as reading the first post before you responded to this thread. OP explicitly stated that he's not allowing infinite simulacrum loop shenanigans, and is asking for help with a different scenario entirely. perhaps you should try again, but this time look before you leap.

[jas61292]

Gotta say though, I think this is the first time I've ever heard the argument "why can't wizards have nice things?"

[SharkForce]

Gotta say though, I think this is the first time I've ever heard the argument "why can't wizards have nice things?"

yeah, that was a new one for me as well. honestly, i have to say that i can somewhat understand *why* simulacrum works the way it does (you already have the character sheet or stat block of whatever you're copying, where in contrast a 60% powerful copy would require you to figure out what the new stat block should be), but i can't say that i would consider wizards to be weak even if simulacrum was not only weakened, but actually removed from the game entirely.

[Sigreid]

yeah, that was a new one for me as well. honestly, i have to say that i can somewhat understand *why* simulacrum works the way it does (you already have the character sheet or stat block of whatever you're copying, where in contrast a 60% powerful copy would require you to figure out what the new stat block should be), but i can't say that i would consider wizards to be weak even if simulacrum was not only weakened, but actually removed from the game entirely.

There are probably plenty of wizards that will never pick it up in favor of other spell picks. There are a lot of good picks you have to give up to choose this one unless your DM is very generous with found/looted/bought spells.

[SharkForce]

There are probably plenty of wizards that will never pick it up in favor of other spell picks. There are a lot of good picks you have to give up to choose this one unless your DM is very generous with found/looted/bought spells.

you don't need to choose simulacrum. you just choose wish.

that said, i wouldn't say there's exactly a ton of other level 7 spells that would be huge priorities over simulacrum. there aren't even a ton of level 7 spells in general for that matter.

[Sigreid]

you don't need to choose simulacrum. you just choose wish.

that said, i wouldn't say there's exactly a ton of other level 7 spells that would be huge priorities over simulacrum. there aren't even a ton of level 7 spells in general for that matter.

Your picks can be from any level you can cast though. My pick for a spell isn't always from the highest level I can cast. It's the one I can put the most use into.

And yes, nearly everyone who can should choose wish. I think you're better off keeping it handy to cast that spell you've only just realized when it's too late that you should have prepared...

[SharkForce]

Your picks can be from any level you can cast though. My pick for a spell isn't always from the highest level I can cast. It's the one I can put the most use into.

And yes, nearly everyone who can should choose wish. I think you're better off keeping it handy to cast that spell you've only just realized when it's too late that you should have prepared...

the basic problem there is that there are a lot of situations that the brute force of having two spellcasters can get you out of anyways. simulacrum is basically pre-emptively making it so you don't need the emergency option nearly as often... and is unfortunately very good at that to the point of really overshadowing most other uses of the spell. i mean, when was the last time you heard someone really talk about any use of simulacrum *other* than copying a high level caster (often the person casting the spell)? i mean, not just sort of mention it as "oh yeah, and you could theoretically also use it for this other thing", i mean have you ever even seen someone discuss using the spell for a purpose other than getting a second set of spell slots and actions on a sacrificial minion as their main purpose for choosing the spell?

[Sigreid]

the basic problem there is that there are a lot of situations that the brute force of having two spellcasters can get you out of anyways. simulacrum is basically pre-emptively making it so you don't need the emergency option nearly as often... and is unfortunately very good at that to the point of really overshadowing most other uses of the spell. i mean, when was the last time you heard someone really talk about any use of simulacrum *other* than copying a high level caster (often the person casting the spell)? i mean, not just sort of mention it as "oh yeah, and you could theoretically also use it for this other thing", i mean have you ever even seen someone discuss using the spell for a purpose other than getting a second set of spell slots and actions on a sacrificial minion as their main purpose for choosing the spell?

Mostly just me who tends to use it (when I have it) as a head of household while I'm off causing a ruckus somewhere. A perfectly loyal and competent being to take care of hearth and home has always seem to me a great use of it.

[Pex]

I feel like wish is such a powerful spell it should be a "oh crap" or "everybody panic" type trump card to keep reserved. I suggested ways to discourage them from spamming the spell every chance they get without pulling the "stop it cause DM says so"



I wouldn't mind that if the spell didn't smack you silly in punishment for using it for any reason other than duplicating another spell. The listed suggestions and using Wish to undo a harmful effect another spell/monster ability/magic item consequence specifically says a Wish can undo should all have been clearly stated as "safe" uses of the spell and is just done and cast normally as any other spell.

I can agree Wish/Simulacrum chaining army is a not good thing for the game, but players should not be admonished for casting Wish in general for whatever spell as that's the only thing can really do with it.

[MaxWilson]

Would making Simulacrum a 9th-level spell solve most of the shenanigan potential the spell has?

Not really. As long as you have two spellcasters, you can still use Simulacrum + Wish to bypass the limitations on Wish and gain effectively infinite Wishes at 1500 gold per Wish. (Making everyone in the party immortal and permanently resistant to all damage, etc.)

Instead I make Simulacrum act like an AD&D Simulacrum: works on any creature, not just humanoids, but produces only a partial-strength version (40-65% of the original's abilities) with limited volition and little personality. Players are fine with that.

[RickAllison]

the basic problem there is that there are a lot of situations that the brute force of having two spellcasters can get you out of anyways. simulacrum is basically pre-emptively making it so you don't need the emergency option nearly as often... and is unfortunately very good at that to the point of really overshadowing most other uses of the spell. i mean, when was the last time you heard someone really talk about any use of simulacrum *other* than copying a high level caster (often the person casting the spell)? i mean, not just sort of mention it as "oh yeah, and you could theoretically also use it for this other thing", i mean have you ever even seen someone discuss using the spell for a purpose other than getting a second set of spell slots and actions on a sacrificial minion as their main purpose for choosing the spell?

Yes, from me! I advocate doing it on a rogue because they have no resources besides HP to manage (assuming non-AT) and many are designed to be taking as little damage as possible. Effectively, it is a Simulacrum that never degrades and must be destroyed. An archer Fighter is similar, though it (by my reading) would not regain Second Wind, Indomitable, or other such rest-restricted features, and so Champion would be preferable. Still, there is something to be said for having some heavy damage-dealing muscle.

[Doug Lampert]

yeah, that was a new one for me as well. honestly, i have to say that i can somewhat understand *why* simulacrum works the way it does (you already have the character sheet or stat block of whatever you're copying, where in contrast a 60% powerful copy would require you to figure out what the new stat block should be), but i can't say that i would consider wizards to be weak even if simulacrum was not only weakened, but actually removed from the game entirely.

If they'd simply specified that nothing made by Simulacrum has a slot of equal or higher level to the slot used to make the Simulacrum then chaining would be fixed. This sort of restriction should IMAO be in effectively all minion creating spells (or you simply limit the minion's CR and avoid giving overleveled spells to anything, but that's not how D&D has done it).

The big problem with simulacrum is that I can use a level 7 slot to make something with level 9 slots, or I can use a level 9 slot to make something with a level 9 slot + a bunch of other slots (if I have two casters handy, which thanks to the level 7 use I do).
Both of the above invite infinite loops, and even if they do not result in infinite loops are far more powerful than the spell should probably be.

Or I can do as the original poster's party is and use a level 9 slot to make something with a bunch of slots of less than level 9, which is still legal with my suggested houserule, and still extremely powerful (as the original poster found), but not gamebreaking. I can always throw more monsters at you.

[Breaklance]

If you have a party with at least one 9th level spell per party member, then why is this a problem? They're already massively powerful.

Why? Wish is weaker than many 9th level spells, unless they use the "1/3 chance to lose it forever" version (which, as a side note, I think is a TERRIBLE mechanic that only encourages things like 'the simulacrum trick').


This is true,but what's more powerful a group of 4 - 9th level casters or a group of 4 - 8th level casters and 4 - 9th level caster slaves. The group is high level and clearly quite powerful but has some limits - allowing them to effectively double their spells everyday gets rid of most of the very few limitations they already have.

I'd argue that wish is more powerful for its versitality. Even if not using the custom wish aspect using it to cast any other spell(8th or lower) in the game, instantly, only as a verbal component, and with no cost is pretty hard to gauge in terms of strength. One person with wish can get a party out of any situation with the proper spell used and player death becomes irrelevant. An entire team with wish are practically gods.

On second thought encourage them to keep wasting wish on their simalcrums it may be easier to create challenging situations against 8 high level casters than it is to make something challenging against 4 uses of wish

[Asmotherion]

you clearly did not actually even get as far as reading the first post before you responded to this thread. OP explicitly stated that he's not allowing infinite simulacrum loop shenanigans, and is asking for help with a different scenario entirely. perhaps you should try again, but this time look before you leap.

Actually I did. I adress to that in the first part of my reply. If a moon druid can have infinite HP and shapechanges into an elemental at the same level, more spell slots for an arcane spellcaster is balanced enough by my book.

The second part of my answer adrsses the tendency of creating fancy rullings to limit things and I go on examples proving even the so called "simulacrum loops" can easyly be controled by a DM. I am awere of the loop, having exploited it in the past (with DM aproval). My point here is, you don't need ways to "deal" with anything as a DM. You say something does not work, and it doesn't, end of the story. If a dm has to deal with convincing his players that they cannot do something or they will do it, he is doing something wrong. Rule 0 is there for some reason.

Now if you wanted to nerf my answer just to sound cool, I quote "try again". :)


Gotta say though, I think this is the first time I've ever heard the argument "why can't wizards have nice things?"

This is not my arguement. My arguement is "Everyone gets nice things after all, one more is not gonna break the game (more than the usual at level 20)".

[Malifice]

Actually I did. I adress to that in the first part of my reply. If a moon druid can have infinite HP and shapechanges into an elemental at the same level, more spell slots for an arcane spellcaster is balanced enough by my book.

They dont really get 'more slots' though.

They get a friendly loyal caster NPC ally. How it interprets the casters orders is entirely up to the DM.

[SharkForce]

Actually I did. I adress to that in the first part of my reply. If a moon druid can have infinite HP and shapechanges into an elemental at the same level, more spell slots for an arcane spellcaster is balanced enough by my book.

The second part of my answer adrsses the tendency of creating fancy rullings to limit things and I go on examples proving even the so called "simulacrum loops" can easyly be controled by a DM. I am awere of the loop, having exploited it in the past (with DM aproval). My point here is, you don't need ways to "deal" with anything as a DM. You say something does not work, and it doesn't, end of the story. If a dm has to deal with convincing his players that they cannot do something or they will do it, he is doing something wrong. Rule 0 is there for some reason.

Now if you wanted to nerf my answer just to sound cool, I quote "try again". :)

you spent half of the thread talking about infinite simulacrum loop, a thing that is explicitly not the subject of the thread. not as in, it isn't the subject, but as in, the thread is explicitly stated to not be about that subject.

the other half was you acting like the DM was trying to remove simulacrum from the game, when in fact he was merely asking for thoughts on slowing down one of the most problematic spells in the game so that it isn't quite so ludicrously powerful (and no, there isn't much of anything more powerful - it is a second concentration, almost doubles your spell slots - especially with 3 casters, only one person will be missing out on their level 9 slot even - and doubles your actions. simulacrum is so poorly balanced it isn't even funny, to the point where a number of people have adopted ludicrous interpretations to make the spell basically unusable (like the simulacrum not being able to gain any power, period, such that it cannot pick up objects or process any information that it didn't know when it was initially created, or that the obedient loyal servant is going to do it's best to make sure you can't give it any orders that it might have to obey and tries to escape your control).

your post was absurdly off-base. it didn't answer any questions the OP asked, and answered questions that the OP explicitly was not asking and which the OP went out of their way to indicate they weren't looking for answers about it. "just accept that simulacrum is destroying your game because other people are getting something good" is not a good answer when simulacrum is giving *far* more good stuff, and in particular some stuff that everyone has known was problematic since 3.x D&D. and truthfully, probably earlier than that even, we just didn't have the internet around for everyone to agree on it.

[Segev]

Honestly, if the problem is "duplicating the party," then it sounds like the issue is the simulacrum spell itself. Just ban it. Or rewrite it to do what you want it to do. Don't make up rules to beat about the bush and "discourage abuse." Change the problematic element.

[Doug Lampert]

Honestly, if the problem is "duplicating the party," then it sounds like the issue is the simulacrum spell itself. Just ban it. Or rewrite it to do what you want it to do. Don't make up rules to beat about the bush and "discourage abuse." Change the problematic element.

Agreed, the party is ALREADY using their spells in an obviously low powered and reasonable fashion given the spells.

Wish says it can duplicate lower level spells safely and ignores most components. Duplicating lower level spells without pesky limits on casting (like knowing the spell or having the time or components) is an intended use of wish. Simulacrum says it gives you a loyal and obedient servant, it goes into some detail on spell slots, so duplicating a caster is a reasonable and intended use. Given this, duplicating yourself is almost certainly within the intended uses.

The party in the original post is ALREADY massively toning things down by all reproducing themselves so they're burning all their level 9 slots. If instead they went one at a time and A duplicates B, then B duplicates C, then C duplicates D, and finally D duplicates A then they've duplicated their entire party, and still have three uses of wish available (which can freely be used for "unsafe" applications), and they're STILL not breaking out the chaining tricks.

The spells are being put to their intended use in a very non-abusive manner. I'd say the players are probably deliberately gimping themselves to keep things reasonable.

The inefficiency is an important point. Tell the players "don't do that" and they'll do something else; and there are LOTS of more effective ways to use those two spells....

If these spells are still a problem with the usage as described then it means one or both of the spells are a problem, and will be a problem under any reasonable interpretation of these spells. Either live with it or change the spells. (And, no, the DM controlling the simulacrum doesn't help at all, I agree that the DM should control it; but it's a loyal, obedient, and intelligent magically created servant. It will do what helps its creator because that's what it wants to do and it will do it in the way that the creator orders because that's what it does.)

This is a party making a minimally effective use of a high level power that comes on line at level 17. Level 17 is SUPPOSED to be awe-inspiring. If this is too much, either don't play at level 17 or start removing spells from the game.

[Coffee_Dragon]

I think this should now be the "If you won't allow wizards to destroy two continents before breakfast when other characters can hit things really fast it can only be because you secretly hate your players" thread, long overdue imo

[SharkForce]

there is nothing "minimally effective" about doubling your actions, the number of spells you can concentrate on, and most of your resources.

and while it is arguably an intended use (in the sense that the spells in question are not being used in any obviously sketchy ways, unlike the infinite simulacrum loop), i'm not at all inclined to agree that it is a *balanced* use of the spell. the most probable scenario is that nobody actually asked themselves whether or not it was reasonable for simulacrum to do what it does, and even more so that nobody ever considered the implications of using wish to cast a simulacrum spell without the gold cost.

which brings us to a problem; the spell being used without any shenanigans on the part of the players is pretty borked. the players aren't doing anything really wrong; nothing about what they're doing is fishy, it doesn't require any weird interpretations to get the spell to do what it does... but it is highly doubtful that the designers intended for a spell to be that powerful. particularly since the legacy use from previous editions is to get a minion that is much less directly powerful than a PC.

(if i used twitter, i might be inclined to ask the designers if they considered that use of simulacrum and wish, actually... but i don't. anyone else feeling up to the task?).

perhaps we ought to redesign simulacrum to allow for more traditional uses without giving an adventuring party a few extra glass cannons.

[Segev]

perhaps we ought to redesign simulacrum to allow for more traditional uses without giving an adventuring party a few extra glass cannons.

The first step would be identifying what those "more traditional uses" are. I am not 100% convinced that we'll find even plurality agreement.

[Sigreid]

The first step would be identifying what those "more traditional uses" are. I am not 100% convinced that we'll find even plurality agreement.

I'm 100% sure we would not.

[SharkForce]

The first step would be identifying what those "more traditional uses" are. I am not 100% convinced that we'll find even plurality agreement.

in 2nd and earlier, you would be getting a considerably weaker, much squishier version of whatever you copied, with crappy gear (and yes, non-magical gear was crap when you're talking about people with level 7+ spells... and if you copied a magic user, it would have no spell book, either). it wasn't even *possible* to use the simulacrum in combat in any meaningful way unless you also used a limited wish and reincarnation spell, meaning to create anything remotely resembling a combat minion was going to cost at least one year of your life (up to 5 or more for an elf, iirc). both repairing and replacing the simulacrum was a non-trivial proposition, and it couldn't be healed. there was no cheap way to create them, and the cost was in something far more limited than gold.

it was pretty obvious what sort of thing it was intended for, and adventuring was not it.

[Asmotherion]

you spent half of the thread talking about infinite simulacrum loop, a thing that is explicitly not the subject of the thread. not as in, it isn't the subject, but as in, the thread is explicitly stated to not be about that subject.

the other half was you acting like the DM was trying to remove simulacrum from the game, when in fact he was merely asking for thoughts on slowing down one of the most problematic spells in the game so that it isn't quite so ludicrously powerful (and no, there isn't much of anything more powerful - it is a second concentration, almost doubles your spell slots - especially with 3 casters, only one person will be missing out on their level 9 slot even - and doubles your actions. simulacrum is so poorly balanced it isn't even funny, to the point where a number of people have adopted ludicrous interpretations to make the spell basically unusable (like the simulacrum not being able to gain any power, period, such that it cannot pick up objects or process any information that it didn't know when it was initially created, or that the obedient loyal servant is going to do it's best to make sure you can't give it any orders that it might have to obey and tries to escape your control).

your post was absurdly off-base. it didn't answer any questions the OP asked, and answered questions that the OP explicitly was not asking and which the OP went out of their way to indicate they weren't looking for answers about it. "just accept that simulacrum is destroying your game because other people are getting something good" is not a good answer when simulacrum is giving *far* more good stuff, and in particular some stuff that everyone has known was problematic since 3.x D&D. and truthfully, probably earlier than that even, we just didn't have the internet around for everyone to agree on it.

Explained, once again, more simply this time, since you seem to fail to understand what I am saying:

A) Simulacrum, with or without extra ruling is not OP, compared to what other characters get. It is simply a powerful choice, but not nececeraly more so than a Moon Druid with unlimited Shapechange. That is because...

B)... What happens with a simulacrum can easily be controled by a DM, as ultimatelly he is the one who approves if something you say is "canon" in his scenario, or if it did not happen at all. Thus, we come to...

C)...Simulacrum does not need any weird rulings (you cannot cast it with wish/your simulacrum cannot make one/your second simulacrum automatically contacts simulacrum rabis, and tries to bite you and your party/any-other-non-sence-you-may-make-up-as-a-ruling), as long as the DM is sane and has experiance DMing. The only scenario where I can imagine Simulacrum being abused is with a non-experianced DM, where the scenario will propably have a lot of plothols and inconsistancies, that a Simulacrum Army might actually save the scenario instead of destroying it (I'm only half joking on this one).

If you still fail to understand, what I'm saying is that the very question presented in this thread is irrelevant to a realistic scenario thus does not need answering. Instead what is needed is a different approach to DMing altogether. My aproach to DMing is my answer to the question "How have others dealt with this?", me being one of the "others".

5e was designed with incredivble balance. If the creators believed that the spell could be abused, it would have been already eratta-ed. Instead, they chose to trust DMs around the world that they can do their job properly.

Most, if not all those so called "abuses" or cases of "something being too OP" are merelly theorycrafting, and will never be seen in an actual scenario. I have been a DM for a long time now, and as long as I'm in control of my table, I have never seen such things happen. If it happens, it's the DM's fault for not having proper control over his table, not the lack of rulings.

[SharkForce]

Explained, once again, more simply this time, since you seem to fail to understand what I am saying:

A) Simulacrum, with or without extra ruling is not OP, compared to what other characters get. It is simply a powerful choice, but not nececeraly more so than a Moon Druid with unlimited Shapechange. That is because...

B)... What happens with a simulacrum can easily be controled by a DM, as ultimatelly he is the one who approves if something you say is "canon" in his scenario, or if it did not happen at all. Thus, we come to...

C)...Simulacrum does not need any weird rulings (you cannot cast it with wish/your simulacrum cannot make one/your second simulacrum automatically contacts simulacrum rabis, and tries to bite you and your party/any-other-non-sence-you-may-make-up-as-a-ruling), as long as the DM is sane and has experiance DMing. The only scenario where I can imagine Simulacrum being abused is with a non-experianced DM, where the scenario will propably have a lot of plothols and inconsistancies, that a Simulacrum Army might actually save the scenario instead of destroying it (I'm only half joking on this one).

If you still fail to understand, what I'm saying is that the very question presented in this thread is irrelevant to a realistic scenario thus does not need answering. Instead what is needed is a different approach to DMing altogether. My aproach to DMing is my answer to the question "How have others dealt with this?", me being one of the "others".

5e was designed with incredivble balance. If the creators believed that the spell could be abused, it would have been already eratta-ed. Instead, they chose to trust DMs around the world that they can do their job properly.

Most, if not all those so called "abuses" or cases of "something being too OP" are merelly theorycrafting, and will never be seen in an actual scenario. I have been a DM for a long time now, and as long as I'm in control of my table, I have never seen such things happen. If it happens, it's the DM's fault for not having proper control over his table, not the lack of rulings.

A) simulacrum absolutely is more powerful than unlimited moon druid wild shape. double actions is ridiculous. doubling all spells of level 1-8 (and possibly 9, if you have multiple casters in the party) on top of that, plus doubling the number of spells you can concentrate on, is by far the most powerful buff in the game.

B) if you need to bring out the "DM can fix it" argument, you've already acknowledged there was a problem, otherwise the DM doesn't need to fix anything.

C) disallowing infinite simulacrum loops is not a weird ruling. the spell pretty much tells you its intended to only allow one simulacrum to be under your control. as to the rest, you're right that it doesn't need those... it needs a sensible rule change instead of a weird one. because it is so borked that it inspires people to make weird rulings instead of allowing the spell as written.

5e is very well-balanced at the lower levels. it is mostly balanced at the mid-levels. when we're talking about the time where you can use level 9 spells, it has some pretty large and obvious flaws, some of which are unlikely to come up in play, some of which are not (for example, i consider it unlikely for an actual campaign to involve the entire party being permanently transformed into CR 17+ dragons the moment a wizard reaches level 19 to be unlikely to occur unless that's the goal of the campaign... on the other hand, temporarily turning one party member into a dragon in a tough fight is much more likely, and is still not balanced with, say, fighter getting a second action surge at level 17. and the devs haven't errated much of anything for balance purposes. in fact, they haven't errated much, period. they haven't fixed spells that everyone knows are trash. they haven't nerfed spells that everyone knows are overpowered for the level they're gained at (like regular polymorph). they haven't fixed spells that don't even function as described (like planar binding... feel free to walk me through how the devs intended that one to be used based on what the spell text itself suggests, you'll probably only run into two or three situations where the thing that needs to happen is not what the spell says happens). the devs did a pretty good job of it this edition, but they are not some kind of omniscient infallible beings.

and while the absurd abuses (like infinite simulacrum loop) may not be tolerated in actual play, we have a real DM with a real group here explicitly telling us that they have a group using the simulacrum spell to nearly double their party and easily dominate any encounter balanced for the group without simulacrum being used. you cannot say it doesn't happen, because it IS happening. the OP of the thread started this thread specifically because this spell, used without any cheesy abusive infinite simulacrum army loops or having the simulacrum take all the risk of casting wish dangerously while avoiding the drawbacks that should come from using wish that way is personally witnessing the game being warped by the spell. there is no question of whether or not it can happen. for this particular individual, it is happening right in front of them. without changing how the spell works in some way, there is no reasonable expectation of it not happening. the "DM control" that should be happening is that the DM should change the spell so that it isn't a problem.

[Segev]

in 2nd and earlier, you would be getting a considerably weaker, much squishier version of whatever you copied, with crappy gear (and yes, non-magical gear was crap when you're talking about people with level 7+ spells... and if you copied a magic user, it would have no spell book, either). it wasn't even *possible* to use the simulacrum in combat in any meaningful way unless you also used a limited wish and reincarnation spell, meaning to create anything remotely resembling a combat minion was going to cost at least one year of your life (up to 5 or more for an elf, iirc). both repairing and replacing the simulacrum was a non-trivial proposition, and it couldn't be healed. there was no cheap way to create them, and the cost was in something far more limited than gold.

it was pretty obvious what sort of thing it was intended for, and adventuring was not it.I'm afraid that I still don't find it "obvious" that it wasn't intended for adventuring. What WAS it intended for? Why COULDN'T it be used in adventuring? Just because it isn't a front-liner doesn't make it not useful. Heck, since older editions let them regain spells, they made great buff-bots.



C)...Simulacrum does not need any weird rulings (you cannot cast it with wish/your simulacrum cannot make one/your second simulacrum automatically contacts simulacrum rabis, and tries to bite you and your party/any-other-non-sence-you-may-make-up-as-a-ruling), as long as the DM is sane and has experiance DMing. The only scenario where I can imagine Simulacrum being abused is with a non-experianced DM, where the scenario will propably have a lot of plothols and inconsistancies, that a Simulacrum Army might actually save the scenario instead of destroying it (I'm only half joking on this one).

If you still fail to understand, what I'm saying is that the very question presented in this thread is irrelevant to a realistic scenario thus does not need answering. Instead what is needed is a different approach to DMing altogether. My aproach to DMing is my answer to the question "How have others dealt with this?", me being one of the "others".

5e was designed with incredivble balance. If the creators believed that the spell could be abused, it would have been already eratta-ed. Instead, they chose to trust DMs around the world that they can do their job properly.

Most, if not all those so called "abuses" or cases of "something being too OP" are merelly theorycrafting, and will never be seen in an actual scenario. I have been a DM for a long time now, and as long as I'm in control of my table, I have never seen such things happen. If it happens, it's the DM's fault for not having proper control over his table, not the lack of rulings.I'm afraid you're still not answering the question. I mean, you're saying a lot, and it's part of a path to deriving an answer, but you're still putting "and then a miracle occurred" in as one of your steps.

Specifically, you say that it doesn't take "weird rulings," but only "an experienced DM." You proceed to list a number of things that should not be done (which I agree with), but fail to give even a hint as to what "an experienced DM" might to do prevent abuse.

"How do we get to Disney World from here?" "Mickey Mouse would be able to tell us." The second sentence isn't helpful unless you give either some indication of what he'd say (allowing us to use that information to try to get there), or can provide us with Mickey Mouse. It certainly doesn't help any of us become like unto Mickey Mouse in our "go to Disney World" expertise.

[Coffee_Dragon]

it was pretty obvious what sort of thing it was intended for, and adventuring was not it.

... sex?

he asked timidly before being bludgeoned by the character limit

[SharkForce]

I'm afraid that I still don't find it "obvious" that it wasn't intended for adventuring. What WAS it intended for? Why COULDN'T it be used in adventuring? Just because it isn't a front-liner doesn't make it not useful. Heck, since older editions let them regain spells, they made great buff-bots.

they can be used for adventuring, sure. but it was always something you had to be pretty cautious about. you didn't just call up a new one every day and bring it into every fight with zero regard for it's safety, because they were non-trivial to replace. it's kinda like, say... grease. intended use is to make an area difficult for people to get through, and is what the spell primarily deals with. but there's no particular reason you couldn't use it to help slide a heavy object across a floor, or push someone or something through a tight space, or even to provide a non-stick surface for cooking, and nothing about the fact that it's intended use is more like area denial means that it must be worse at those other purposes than might be expected.

i'm not saying we need to totally shut down any and all potential adventuring use. i'm saying that in its current form, the spell heavily encourages making a copy of the most powerful spellcaster you can get your hands on and use it to help you roflstomp encounters that were supposed to be challenging, and has much less incentive to use it in any other way than that (certainly, you *can* use it for other things, but there's not much in the way of compelling reasons to do so).

i'm simply suggesting we look for changes that encourage something other than bringing an extra 3/4 of a character into every fight and skewing encounter difficulty in a huge way. if it was better at pretending to be other people and worse at being a disposable LAW rocket launcher, i for one think it would be better for the game.

[Asmotherion]

I'm afraid that I still don't find it "obvious" that it wasn't intended for adventuring. What WAS it intended for? Why COULDN'T it be used in adventuring? Just because it isn't a front-liner doesn't make it not useful. Heck, since older editions let them regain spells, they made great buff-bots.

I'm afraid you're still not answering the question. I mean, you're saying a lot, and it's part of a path to deriving an answer, but you're still putting "and then a miracle occurred" in as one of your steps.

Specifically, you say that it doesn't take "weird rulings," but only "an experienced DM." You proceed to list a number of things that should not be done (which I agree with), but fail to give even a hint as to what "an experienced DM" might to do prevent abuse.

"How do we get to Disney World from here?" "Mickey Mouse would be able to tell us." The second sentence isn't helpful unless you give either some indication of what he'd say (allowing us to use that information to try to get there), or can provide us with Mickey Mouse. It certainly doesn't help any of us become like unto Mickey Mouse in our "go to Disney World" expertise.

Alright, here is a direct answer:

As a Dm I would manifest a series of events that would prevent the caster(s) from abusing said power. I would force them indirectly to use up either their spell slots or the Simulacrum's at a higher rate than usual.

In a situation were the PCs have more power than usual, I would ajust the challenge rating of an encounter, considering the simulacrums as separate PCs of the same level, and getting their share of xp (whitch would ofcource be wasted as a simulacrum cannot learn). It's not a fancy rulling, it's just the logical thing to do in such a situation, as basically the players are controlling 2 PC each. Notice how I am not punishing the players for being more powerful, rather than give them a chance to get:

A) more combat fun with a more challenging encounter
B) a chance to potentially aquire more loot, as there will either be more opponents (aka more gold to loot) or a more dificult opponent, thus "earning" a higher grade reward from this.

Adding to this, if a player does something that I don't want in my campain I use 2 options:

A) I tell them "no, this didn't happen". My players know better than to debate with me, as I do penalties for even trying to debate; When I DM, no means no. No IFs, no BUTs, no discussion. No. However I combine this with being a fair DM. My main focus is that everyone must have his chance to shine. If someone feels that something was unfair during my sessions, he is free to discuss with me after the session. If I see he is right, I try to make up for it in game, during the next session, be it with inspiration points or bonus xp. This won't happen offten though, because it's my duty as a DM to not let it happen.

B) When it's a chain of events that's about to happen, and I don't want them to, I give them a hint. Something around the lines of "You have a bad feeling about this however..." or "You remember reading some lore of harsh punishment if you do that". If they don't get the hint, they get themselves in a subquest to find a way out of what could be a prank from a trickster god, or being randomly teleported to the nine hells, and for some reason plane taveling spells won't work for them, so they have to find an other way to the material plane.

The only rule applied here, is rule 0, done the right way. My point is, you don't need to have a set rule that "doing x does y", 5e already has enough rules for that already. If something is virtually and theoretically abusable, it doesn't mean it will ruin your campain if you don't have set rules for it. You just need to know and let your players know what being a DM means. Effectivelly DMing needs a set of skills, and is much more than merelly narating. In D&D terms, a DM must, not only have imagination to make an interesting scenario, he needs a good amount of inteligence to make an interesting plot, and combine the events effectivelly, wisdom to judge a situation, and act acordingly, and, most importantly, charisma, to have the players respect his table. The more a DM tolerates, the less effective he (or she) will be as a DM.

[SharkForce]

Alright, here is a direct answer:

As a Dm I would manifest a series of events that would prevent the caster(s) from abusing said power. I would force them indirectly to use up either their spell slots or the Simulacrum's at a higher rate than usual.

In a situation were the PCs have more power than usual, I would ajust the challenge rating of an encounter, considering the simulacrums as separate PCs of the same level, and getting their share of xp (whitch would ofcource be wasted as a simulacrum cannot learn). It's not a fancy rulling, it's just the logical thing to do in such a situation, as basically the players are controlling 2 PC each. Notice how I am not punishing the players for being more powerful, rather than give them a chance to get:

A) more combat fun with a more challenging encounter
B) a chance to potentially aquire more loot, as there will either be more opponents (aka more gold to loot) or a more dificult opponent, thus "earning" a higher grade reward from this.

Adding to this, if a player does something that I don't want in my campain I use 2 options:

A) I tell them "no, this didn't happen". My players know better than to debate with me, as I do penalties for even trying to debate; When I DM, no means no. No IFs, no BUTs, no discussion. No. However I combine this with being a fair DM. My main focus is that everyone must have his chance to shine. If someone feels that something was unfair during my sessions, he is free to discuss with me after the session. If I see he is right, I try to make up for it in game, during the next session, be it with inspiration points or bonus xp. This won't happen offten though, because it's my duty as a DM to not let it happen.

B) When it's a chain of events that's about to happen, and I don't want them to, I give them a hint. Something around the lines of "You have a bad feeling about this however..." or "You remember reading some lore of harsh punishment if you do that". If they don't get the hint, they get themselves in a subquest to find a way out of what could be a prank from a trickster god, or being randomly teleported to the nine hells, and for some reason plane taveling spells won't work for them, so they have to find an other way to the material plane.

The only rule applied here, is rule 0, done the right way. My point is, you don't need to have a set rule that "doing x does y", 5e already has enough rules for that already. If something is virtually and theoretically abusable, it doesn't mean it will ruin your campain if you don't have set rules for it. You just need to know and let your players know what being a DM means. Effectivelly DMing needs a set of skills, and is much more than merelly narating. In D&D terms, a DM must, not only have imagination to make an interesting scenario, he needs a good amount of inteligence to make an interesting plot, and combine the events effectivelly, wisdom to judge a situation, and act acordingly, and, most importantly, charisma, to have the players respect his table. The more a DM tolerates, the less effective he (or she) will be as a DM.

okay, so here's the problem:

if all classes are supposedly getting things that are just as cool, then why is this one thing being singled out?

if you don't look at a barbarian using the increased attribute cap available at level 20 and say "oh, by the way, you count as two level 20 PCs for the purposes of balancing every fight and awarding exp, except the extra share of exp vanishes entirely", the same thing should not happen for a level 17 wizard using a level 13 wizard ability and expending a level 17 wizard ability to do so.

if you need all these special disclaimers for simulacrum that make it clear it is not remotely close to being equal to everything else, then you don't get to turn around and say that simulacrum is nothing special and everyone gets equally powerful stuff at those levels, because if that's the case then the exp budget for having a level 17 character in the party would need to already account for all of those equally powerful abilities, and simulacrum would not warp your games at all.

properly balanced stuff does not require extreme deus es machina and gentleman's agreements to avoid warping the game. if something DOES require this kind of crap, it's a sure sign that it isn't balanced.

to just act like it's perfectly balanced and there's nothing wrong with it, and it's in line with everyone else's high level abilities, when you so clearly know this isn't the case and are adjusting your games to compensate for the problem is just misleading. to then go on and act like the OP doesn't know what they're talking about when they ask for help with this game-warping ability and claim that it doesn't warp the game at all is not helpful.

edit: oh, and letting a player pick an ability that you left in the game and then only after the fact (when they're about to use the ability, or even after using the ability) telling them that they secretly picked a different ability with hidden limitations that they don't know about: that is NOT rule zero done the right way.

[Segev]

In practice, it sounds like all you're doing is saying "no" on a case-by-case basis. Which is fine, and in fact advice I tend to give over trying to blanket-change things with limited understanding as to what the change will encourage (as most changes usually will engender). I do think your "don't even debate with me" thing a bit heavy-handed; I'd probably not game with you as my GM.

I couldn't trust a GM who felt the need to shut down all discussion and not even entertain alternative ideas nor allow examination of consequences of the judgments made, at least not to be a fair GM. I am sure you mean to be, but unless you're not just experienced, but the smartest and most far-seeing person in your group and almost never make mistakes nor miss anything, it's inevitable that you'll create problems. And it has been my experience that "shut up, no debate" GMs don't acknowledge when they have, but just make more and more spot-rulings and reduce the fun of the game to "mother may I."

I don't like playing "mother may I" in RPGs. I like having some sense that I can predict how my actions will fall out. Or even whether I'm capable of taking them.

However, if your players trust you with it and keep gaming, glad it works for your table.

[Asmotherion]

okay, so here's the problem:

if all classes are supposedly getting things that are just as cool, then why is this one thing being singled out?

if you don't look at a barbarian using the increased attribute cap available at level 20 and say "oh, by the way, you count as two level 20 PCs for the purposes of balancing every fight and awarding exp, except the extra share of exp vanishes entirely", the same thing should not happen for a level 17 wizard using a level 13 wizard ability and expending a level 17 wizard ability to do so.

if you need all these special disclaimers for simulacrum that make it clear it is not remotely close to being equal to everything else, then you don't get to turn around and say that simulacrum is nothing special and everyone gets equally powerful stuff at those levels, because if that's the case then the exp budget for having a level 17 character in the party would need to already account for all of those equally powerful abilities, and simulacrum would not warp your games at all.

properly balanced stuff does not require extreme deus es machina and gentleman's agreements to avoid warping the game. if something DOES require this kind of crap, it's a sure sign that it isn't balanced.

to just act like it's perfectly balanced and there's nothing wrong with it, and it's in line with everyone else's high level abilities, when you so clearly know this isn't the case and are adjusting your games to compensate for the problem is just misleading. to then go on and act like the OP doesn't know what they're talking about when they ask for help with this game-warping ability and claim that it doesn't warp the game at all is not helpful.

edit: oh, and letting a player pick an ability that you left in the game and then only after the fact (when they're about to use the ability, or even after using the ability) telling them that they secretly picked a different ability with hidden limitations that they don't know about: that is NOT rule zero done the right way.

Nothing is wrong with it. You and some other people are just too concerned around it's potential left unmonitored. Realistically, however it's never left unmonitored. Also, in effect, a Simulacrum is not a self buff at all, you look at it wrong; It is an entirelly different character who just happens to be under the same player's control. The character may happen to have the exact same abilities, granted. How game braking this is however is entirelly up to the DM.

Bold: If that's what you read in what I said, you clearly understand what I'm saying far less than I originally thought. The ability does function normally as intended... unless they are about to abuse it; If they are, this is were rule 0 applies. This IS rule 0 done the right way.

Let me ask you a question: Have you ever DMed before? If so, what do you think a Level 14+ Wizard/Sorcerer/Bard PC controling player would prefear in a campain? No access to Simulacrum at all, 100 weird rullings on how you can't do x and y with this spell or z will happen, or simply the knowlage that his DM puts trust in him wielding this spell moderatelly and wiselly, and that abusing this trust will have consequences?

About the part of the "problem" of more spells per day: A higher challenge rating, as I said before, makes this non game breaking. It's basically the same thing as if a new player had just joined the campain and rolled a Spellcaster of the PCs level... Even less than that, as the Simulacrum cannot regain spell slots. Also, a spellcaster who uses his 9th level spell slot to cast wish for a simulacrum, dedicates his 9th level slot to this cause. Witch is a prety big deal, if you think of what 9th level spells can do. The created simulacrum is logically assumed to lack the spell slots the original had already used this day, including the one used to make it. I think (not sure about this though) there is even a Sage Advice post that officialises this as RAI. So, you either have a simulacrum without a 9th spell slot, or you must pay for one that has a 9th level spell slot (including the terrible amound of time needed to make one, and a huge amount of gold).

Now, if your problem is their ability to cast cantrips, maybe we should ban spells like conjure elementals/woodland beings, or deprive a fighter of his 3rd and 4th attacks? (Irony intended). Because, that's it more or less. One more attack per turn, at best adding 4d10 to their at-will fire power. Wow, such a big deal when they dedicated a 9th level spell slot for that, huh? Especially when the simulacrum, having only half hit point of the already frail spellcaster will porpably be the first and only thing to be killed every other encounter.

Now, if a player gets jealous over this ability, maybe he would like to try re-rolling an Arcane Spellcaster? Personally, I never had this problem though, but again, the players at my table are quite mature, and understand that each of them has a role in this game.


In practice, it sounds like all you're doing is saying "no" on a case-by-case basis. Which is fine, and in fact advice I tend to give over trying to blanket-change things with limited understanding as to what the change will encourage (as most changes usually will engender). I do think your "don't even debate with me" thing a bit heavy-handed; I'd probably not game with you as my GM.

I couldn't trust a GM who felt the need to shut down all discussion and not even entertain alternative ideas nor allow examination of consequences of the judgments made, at least not to be a fair GM. I am sure you mean to be, but unless you're not just experienced, but the smartest and most far-seeing person in your group and almost never make mistakes nor miss anything, it's inevitable that you'll create problems. And it has been my experience that "shut up, no debate" GMs don't acknowledge when they have, but just make more and more spot-rulings and reduce the fun of the game to "mother may I."

I don't like playing "mother may I" in RPGs. I like having some sense that I can predict how my actions will fall out. Or even whether I'm capable of taking them.

However, if your players trust you with it and keep gaming, glad it works for your table.

I just noticed your post, and didn't want to sound rude for not replying:

Basically, that's not entirelly how you describe it. It's not a "Mother may I?" kind of scenario... On the contrary, I am fond of creative ways used to solve a problem (both in battle and out of it). I just know when to interfere, if something is too far-fetched and out of realism, too metagame-y or simply something that would ruin the fan of most for the fun of one or two players.

That said, I do not allow debates to my judgment. I give the chance to the player to fully explain what he attempts to do before I make a judgment, clearifying what needs to be clearified. But if ultimatly, my judjment is "no", it's definitive. It won't change, and I won't stop mid-scenario to discuss it further. I will discuss it out of scenario, and if the player convinces me my judgmet was wrong, he will get componceted somehow.

Examples to this have saved scenarios from "chaotic stupid/stupid evil" PCs (chaotic evil or neutral evil PCs that were controled by unexperianced RPers and thought it would be logical to attempt to murder the party because they were on watch that night) multiple times. It has also helped to have the players focused on the scenario, and less "freeform rp" when it was not downtime, and it would simply slow down the scenario without getting anything out of it.

[SharkForce]

the problem is that the only "abuse" discussed here is using the spell exactly as you'd expect. not infinite loops. not having your simulacrum wish you into a superhuman with resistance to everything etc during downtime. just making a simulacrum of you and using it the same way you'd use yourself, except more disposable.

and yes, it's a 9th level slot (and i agree, the created simulacrum doesn't have the slot, unless you copied a different person who still has their level 9 slot; it's a copy of the target when it was created, and you obviously don't have your level 9 slot after using your level 9 slot). but the game doesn't require these kinds of adjustments for other level 9 spells (or other level 17 abilities). nobody says "oh, you used meteor swarm? well, ok, this fight grants less exp" or "hah, mass heal? ok, all the enemies deal double damage for the rest of the fight to compensate". those things are accounted for in the fact that you're a level 17 character. heck, even other uses of wish are reasonably well accounted for. if you use wish to make a symbol and help you win a fight, it doesn't warp the game. only simulacrum does that.

given a choice between having an ability in the game that is so game-warping that the DM is going to have to arbitrarily change the way it works without letting anyone know in advance of selecting the ability, i'd rather that ability not be in the game. i wouldn't enjoy it being done to me as a player, and i wouldn't enjoy doing it to my players as a DM. if an ability is a problem, and i know it's a problem, i will either remove it entirely or change it so that it isn't a problem, and if i have to do that after someone has used it because it wasn't immediately obvious, i give the equivalent of a free respec of that ability to anyone impacted(all prior uses work as the ability was described, and we just ignore the continuity error the same way we tell physics to shut it's gob every time a dragon flys or a wizard casts fireball; future uses, if any, will use the new version, if it was changed instead of being removed)

and no, i'm not afraid that the simulacrum is going to spam cantrips. i'm afraid that the simulacrum is going to spam spell slots, and then when it's used up enough that it isn't very useful any more, it will be replaced with a new one that has more spell slots.

seriously, if an ability is this game-warping, it doesn't belong in the game (in that form, at the very least). abilities that *are* so thoroughly game-warping tend to quickly destroy the enjoyment for everyone involved. being too powerful is just as much a problem as being not powerful enough.

[Vogonjeltz]

This is true,but what's more powerful a group of 4 - 9th level casters or a group of 4 - 8th level casters and 4 - 9th level caster slaves. The group is high level and clearly quite powerful but has some limits - allowing them to effectively double their spells everyday gets rid of most of the very few limitations they already have.

It depends on the magic items each party had I'd think. There tend to be far more powerful items available to classes other than Wizard, and none of the simulacra come with equipment, so until they get kitted out they can't even cast some spells (and without a spellbook, they can't actually 'change' their spells, so they're locked in with whatever the original wizard had memorized.)


The first step would be identifying what those "more traditional uses" are. I am not 100% convinced that we'll find even plurality agreement.

I think it tends to be more of a DM tool for storytelling (i.e. Evil wizard replaces important figure with puppet) as is the case with many higher level spells, such as Antipathy/sympathy, Awaken (the gem valuation (1,000 gp agate) makes it extremely unlikely to find one as no Agate appears on any gem table with a valuation higher than 10 gold!), and Imprisonment (Sleeping Beauty).

[Sigreid]

It depends on the magic items each party had I'd think. There tend to be far more powerful items available to classes other than Wizard, and none of the simulacra come with equipment, so until they get kitted out they can't even cast some spells (and without a spellbook, they can't actually 'change' their spells, so they're locked in with whatever the original wizard had memorized.)


RAW they can't memorize new spells or regain slots. If you use simulacrum on a spell caster what you have essentially done is create an intelligent limited use magic item with the exact spells memorized as the target. There are a few ways this could really change the power in the group.

* It can be good for a short burst of nova damage or crowd control (for however long the spell slots hold out)
* It can make use of your spare staff of the Magi (morel likely other items such as wands, etc.)
* If you don't quite trust the ruler that has requested an audience, it can go be a convincing substitute
*It can go down passage ways, open doors and chests and such when you aren't convinced it's safe (I picture a soldier searching for land mines by probing with his foot while he's got his fingers in his ears so the noise won't hurt
* OK round to round damage with whatever cantrips you have.
* Taking on the risk associated with using wish for something other than duplicating a spell
* Going to dinner at your mother in laws so you don't have to.
* Things such as these...

[Segev]

I'll have to check the spell again, but I don't think it's forbidden from swapping out its spell selection. It just can't regain spell slots.

[Cazero]

Frankly, I don't understand why they worded Wish the way they did. It's pretty obvious that the Wish spell doesn't allow you to cast whatever you want, but to wish for something that will me mechanicaly represented by a lower level spell. You know, exactly like the cleric class feature to make miracles where they state domain spells are a pretty good guideline for what is possible, wich is properly explained as mechanicaly similar to spells and not the spell themselves.
For example, if you wish to raze a city with an earthquake and the book just happens to have a spell called Earthquake, the wish effect is pretty straightforward. You still have to tweak duration or area a bit, but the Earthquake spell tells you how much damage it deals, what bonus it has against buildings, etc.
But you don't cast Simulacrum trhough Wish. You wish for a copy of something, and most of the Simulacrum text is spot on for that. The part with all memories allowing perfect intel from Simulacrum of sworn enemies isn't.


I'm afraid that I still don't find it "obvious" that it wasn't intended for adventuring. What WAS it intended for? Why COULDN'T it be used in adventuring?
I'm pretty sure the intended use was this (http://bobandgeorge.com/archives/070702), a villain tool to recycle/save BBEGs. From the perspective of a stereotypical high level wizard (living in his tower making experiments and never getting out for adventure because there are lackeys for that, or apprentices if magical support is necessary), having a Simulacrum decoy to trick enemies into thinking they killed him while he is planning his next move is the smart thing to do.
And then high level wizards became available for player to use and nobody messes with sacred cows.

[Segev]

I don't see why player characters shouldn't have Live Model Decoys if they want them (and are appropriately high level). But it's noteworthy that that's still a form of "adventuring." The simulacrum is faking being the original, and going out and doing the original's "thing" while the original is busy (or safely hiding) elsewhere.

It doesn't do very well for leaving people convinced you're dead, though; dissolving into a puddle of icy slush is a bit of a give-away.

[Asmotherion]

the problem is that the only "abuse" discussed here is using the spell exactly as you'd expect. not infinite loops. not having your simulacrum wish you into a superhuman with resistance to everything etc during downtime. just making a simulacrum of you and using it the same way you'd use yourself, except more disposable.

and yes, it's a 9th level slot (and i agree, the created simulacrum doesn't have the slot, unless you copied a different person who still has their level 9 slot; it's a copy of the target when it was created, and you obviously don't have your level 9 slot after using your level 9 slot). but the game doesn't require these kinds of adjustments for other level 9 spells (or other level 17 abilities). nobody says "oh, you used meteor swarm? well, ok, this fight grants less exp" or "hah, mass heal? ok, all the enemies deal double damage for the rest of the fight to compensate". those things are accounted for in the fact that you're a level 17 character. heck, even other uses of wish are reasonably well accounted for. if you use wish to make a symbol and help you win a fight, it doesn't warp the game. only simulacrum does that.

given a choice between having an ability in the game that is so game-warping that the DM is going to have to arbitrarily change the way it works without letting anyone know in advance of selecting the ability, i'd rather that ability not be in the game. i wouldn't enjoy it being done to me as a player, and i wouldn't enjoy doing it to my players as a DM. if an ability is a problem, and i know it's a problem, i will either remove it entirely or change it so that it isn't a problem, and if i have to do that after someone has used it because it wasn't immediately obvious, i give the equivalent of a free respec of that ability to anyone impacted(all prior uses work as the ability was described, and we just ignore the continuity error the same way we tell physics to shut it's gob every time a dragon flys or a wizard casts fireball; future uses, if any, will use the new version, if it was changed instead of being removed)

and no, i'm not afraid that the simulacrum is going to spam cantrips. i'm afraid that the simulacrum is going to spam spell slots, and then when it's used up enough that it isn't very useful any more, it will be replaced with a new one that has more spell slots.

seriously, if an ability is this game-warping, it doesn't belong in the game (in that form, at the very least). abilities that *are* so thoroughly game-warping tend to quickly destroy the enjoyment for everyone involved. being too powerful is just as much a problem as being not powerful enough.

As I mentioned before, you look at simulacrum the wrong way. If you stop considering it as "a powerful spell-spaming machine" and start considering it simply as a new PC who just happens to be controled by the same player, you may stop seeing it as such a problem. My XP calculations are not "wrapping of the rules" rather than interpreting the rules as they are, in a logical way. "The creature is partially real" means for me that it should be taking it's share of XP, even if it cannot use it. I do this for all summoning spells as a matter of fact (except from Summon Fammiliar).

Let's dicuss it a bit phylosophically, as in "what does XP symbolises". XP, witch is an abrivation for experiance, is the battle experiance one gets from resolving something... the feedback he gets. If a person was to deal with a situation on his own it's logical he would get the most feedback from it, as he had to deal with the situation without relying on anyone. At the same time, the task (for example, a battle) becomes more dificult, but the result of success is even more rewarding (aka more XP). So, if someone had a Summoned creature or Simulacrum help them in battle, it's logical to assume he gets less XP from the battle, as he received help to complete it. The same goes for more players in a party.

In any case, I have never had a problem with this spell or any other. I don't view it as problematic, that's all there is to it. If you wish, we can simply agree to disagree, but I think that with a logical following of the rules, no problems should occure in a campain.

[SharkForce]

As I mentioned before, you look at simulacrum the wrong way. If you stop considering it as "a powerful spell-spaming machine" and start considering it simply as a new PC who just happens to be controled by the same player, you may stop seeing it as such a problem. My XP calculations are not "wrapping of the rules" rather than interpreting the rules as they are, in a logical way. "The creature is partially real" means for me that it should be taking it's share of XP, even if it cannot use it. I do this for all summoning spells as a matter of fact (except from Summon Fammiliar).

Let's dicuss it a bit phylosophically, as in "what does XP symbolises". XP, witch is an abrivation for experiance, is the battle experiance one gets from resolving something... the feedback he gets. If a person was to deal with a situation on his own it's logical he would get the most feedback from it, as he had to deal with the situation without relying on anyone. At the same time, the task (for example, a battle) becomes more dificult, but the result of success is even more rewarding (aka more XP). So, if someone had a Summoned creature or Simulacrum help them in battle, it's logical to assume he gets less XP from the battle, as he received help to complete it. The same goes for more players in a party.

In any case, I have never had a problem with this spell or any other. I don't view it as problematic, that's all there is to it. If you wish, we can simply agree to disagree, but I think that with a logical following of the rules, no problems should occure in a campain.

a fireball is ALL real. does it take a portion of the party's exp? how about a wall of stone? 100% real, lasts indefinitely if you keep concentrating long enough. or a glyph of warding. that's real too. if anything, provided we're basing exp cost of spells on how real they are, the wizard should get *bonus* exp for using a simulacrum, because unlike most of the other spells the wizard will cast, it is only partly real.

simulacrum is kind of like an extra PC, but it is like a PC that is a powerful spell-spamming machine, assuming you choose a spellcaster for the simulacrum to copy. there is no "or" in this. it is both, because i can make another one tomorrow that will be as powerful offensively as a PC to spam spells tomorrow as well.

a character's exp budget should take their abilities into account. if the exp budget for a level 17 wizard or a level 5 druid is different from the exp budget for a level 17 fighter or a level 5 barbarian, respectively, then there is a problem, especially if the difference only occurs when a summon spell is used.

exp does mean experience, but the wizard who uses a simulacrum or the druid who uses a pack of wolves to overcome a challenge was using their class abilities to do so, just like a fighter who uses action surge or a ranger who uses hunter's mark. i fail to see why it should matter whether the wizard used a class feature to create a simulacrum that he must direct as opposed to any other effect, which he must direct. if a druid uses call lightning, that also produces an effect which he must direct... why should it be any different from using magic to summon a bunch of animals, which the druid must also direct. if anything, the wizard or druid is having to make far more decisions and perform more complex tasks by directing the simulacrum or wolves; a wall of force requires one decision to be made, ever (and if it wasn't a wall of force, it would be something else anyways). a call lightning requires one decision per round (and if it wasn't there, the druid would need to make a different decision). a simulacrum requires multiple decisions per round, easily 4 (what to do with the move, action, bonus action, reaction), and the druid needs to do that for 8+ creatures with conjure animals. why would that result in gaining *less* experience from the fight?

[stenver]

In any case, I have never had a problem with this spell or any other. I don't view it as problematic, that's all there is to it. If you wish, we can simply agree to disagree, but I think that with a logical following of the rules, no problems should occure in a campain.

In the future i suggest you actually read threads and try to think about what others wrote, instead of trying to make others understand you with irrelevant answers. Maybe you will be more successful in your arguments.

For others- this isn't about level 17 wizard vs other classes. Bard and sorcerers also get this spell.

Thank you for all the input guys - except asmotherion. You guys gave me a lot of interesting ideas to think about

[Sigreid]

It doesn't do very well for leaving people convinced you're dead, though; dissolving into a puddle of icy slush is a bit of a give-away.

Yes, but their trap has now failed and you most likely have a clear understanding of their intentions towards you, making you much harder to trap and kill.

[Asmotherion]

In the future i suggest you actually read threads and try to think about what others wrote, instead of trying to make others understand you with irrelevant answers. Maybe you will be more successful in your arguments.

For others- this isn't about level 17 wizard vs other classes. Bard and sorcerers also get this spell.

Thank you for all the input guys - except asmotherion. You guys gave me a lot of interesting ideas to think about

Seeing this reply I now regret having dedicated so much time and effort answering and explaining to an ungreatfull person.

If you had dedicated half that time to actually read my posts, you would know that non of them is irelevant. But sure, I'll make sure to never dedicate my precious time for one of your threads ever in the future, as I am exceptionally excluded.

Finally, I am successful in my arguements, with people who can actually process the information. It's not my fault that you are unable to do that. Good day.