Speculation Nerfing Simulacrum with randomness [Archive]

Doug Lampert

2017-03-20, 04:38 PM

So, the Simulacrum spell is one of those I hate the most. Having a clone of yours that is friendly to you is possibly the most abusable spell, especially with Wish to create it (or them) for free.

But what if the simulacrum's reaction to the original were different every time, instead of always friendly? Thinking of this, I decided to make a minitable to generate a reaction for each created simulacrum, by rolling a d6:

1) Completely devoted to duplicate. Will voluntarily put itself at risk if the creator would benefit from it.
2) Fond of duplicate. Will help him out if no risks to itself are involved.
3) Indifferent towards duplicate. Will try to seek his own life, only caring about the creator's wishes if they are benefitial to both of them.
4) Afraid of duplicate. Will do his best to stay away from him, and can only be coerced by intimidation or brute force.
5) Hostile towards duplicate. Will do anything possible to destroy him, or at least see him suffer in the most painful ways.
6) Roll again.

Haven't playtested this yet, but what do you think?

Just declare that the duplicate's spell casts use the creator's slots and count as cast by the creator for purposes of the limit on number of Similacrum or ability to exceed the normal limits with Wish or other specific limits on the casting of specific spells (but not for general limits such as actions, concentration, range, and targetting).

Done. And the rule is extendable if some other spell gives far more power than it should by letting you cast more spells (such as "Conjure Woodland Beings").

Summoned/created/polymorphed any object/shapechanged crap doesn't get any extra slots, the slots need to come from somewhere. That's not an actual wizard, an actual archmage, or an actual pixie, it's something else being made by your magical mojo to imitate X, and it doesn't get any slots unless you provide the slots or it had them prior to the spell you used.

DanyBallon

2017-03-20, 05:01 PM

As far as I'm concerned, I've always considered simulacrum as something you use to replace a NPC (i.e replacing the King's advisor in order to influence the King's decision) so in regard to this we've houseruled that you can't copy the caster, even though a wish.

Or you could just say that they can't be more than one copy, of a given creature, at the time like the spell says even if cast with wish.

Segev

2017-03-20, 05:07 PM

Actually, I like the idea suggested that the simulacrum, if casting spells, uses the creator's spell slots. Add in a dominate person style clause about contact and control, and it becomes a disguised catspaw for the caster, which is fitting. It still gets expanded spell knowledge if duplicating somebody with DIFFERENT spells, but uses the slots of its creator.

Might need some further enumeration of creator-paid costs for limited-use abilities of other classes.

Specter

2017-03-20, 06:10 PM

"Hey, I just spent a bunch of gp and a high-level spell slot and a long casting time on this! It's so cool that it has a 1/6 chance of trying to kill me for that investment!"

Alternatively, you could keep the total control effect in place, and have the simulacrum just resent it on that roll of 5, but...then does it really do anything?

Hey, if you roll a 1 you get a fanatic tank that's willing to die for you. And other spells can also turn bad on the creator, like Conjure Elementals.

sir_argo

2017-03-20, 07:03 PM

Breashios

2017-03-20, 08:05 PM

I recommended to my own group that Simulacrums' count against their creator's limits. So not only could a sim not create another sim (well, he could create one, but then he'd be destroyed), but if a sim casts a Wish spell for something other than what is on the "ok" list, the 33% chance to never be able to cast Wish again would effect the PC. I'm sure there are other spells to which this same rule would apply. Off the top of my head, Find Familiar, and Contingency (a sim casting it would dispel one on the creator).

Surprisingly, my suggestion to restrict a sim from creating another sim got turned down. Boy are they in for a rude surprise!!

Yes! The players in my campaign generally jump at any suggested restriction I have proposed. Well the two I've proposed. Because they know if I've thought about it enough to know it could be a problem, I've also thought about it enough to know how to bring the pain. Also they trust me to build the game world in a way that has internal consistency and allow the plots to make sense.

Malifice

2017-03-20, 09:04 PM

So, the Simulacrum spell is one of those I hate the most. Having a clone of yours that is friendly to you is possibly the most abusable spell, especially with Wish to create it (or them) for free.

But what if the simulacrum's reaction to the original were different every time, instead of always friendly? Thinking of this, I decided to make a minitable to generate a reaction for each created simulacrum, by rolling a d6:

1) Completely devoted to duplicate. Will voluntarily put itself at risk if the creator would benefit from it.
2) Fond of duplicate. Will help him out if no risks to itself are involved.
3) Indifferent towards duplicate. Will try to seek his own life, only caring about the creator's wishes if they are benefitial to both of them.
4) Afraid of duplicate. Will do his best to stay away from him, and can only be coerced by intimidation or brute force.
5) Hostile towards duplicate. Will do anything possible to destroy him, or at least see him suffer in the most painful ways.
6) Roll again.

Haven't playtested this yet, but what do you think?

IMG the DM controls the Simulacrum (like he controls all NPCs).

The Simulacrum is loyal to the caster, and obeys his orders, but is otherwise free to interpret how to carry out those orders, and how to best implement them.

He can do something radically different to what the caster intended if the Simulacrum decides that's what the caster really wanted, or thats the best way to achieve the casters goals.

Its just a very loyal AI. And I'm sure we've seen enough movies about problems with AI (2001, I Robot, Terminator etc) to know some of the problems that might ensue.

sir_argo

2017-03-20, 09:11 PM

Yes! The players in my campaign generally jump at any suggested restriction I have proposed. Well the two I've proposed. Because they know if I've thought about it enough to know it could be a problem, I've also thought about it enough to know how to bring the pain. Also they trust me to build the game world in a way that has internal consistency and allow the plots to make sense.

Just to clarify, I'm not the DM. The DM declined to implement the rule that a sim can't create another sim. I'm 14th level. The second I gain 17, I'll start building my army and we'll see just how fast he reconsiders.

NNescio

2017-03-21, 12:27 AM

So, the Simulacrum spell is one of those I hate the most. Having a clone of yours that is friendly to you is possibly the most abusable spell, especially with Wish to create it (or them) for free.

But what if the simulacrum's reaction to the original were different every time, instead of always friendly? Thinking of this, I decided to make a minitable to generate a reaction for each created simulacrum, by rolling a d6:

1) Completely devoted to duplicate. Will voluntarily put itself at risk if the creator would benefit from it.
2) Fond of duplicate. Will help him out if no risks to itself are involved.
3) Indifferent towards duplicate. Will try to seek his own life, only caring about the creator's wishes if they are benefitial to both of them.
4) Afraid of duplicate. Will do his best to stay away from him, and can only be coerced by intimidation or brute force.
5) Hostile towards duplicate. Will do anything possible to destroy him, or at least see him suffer in the most painful ways.
6) Roll again.

Haven't playtested this yet, but what do you think?

This just makes the spell unusable except by casters with Wish and Detect Thoughts (and the necessary prep time). At which point you're encouraging abuse, not dissuading it.

Simple houserule -- sims can't create sims, done. You get one. I mean, sure, doubling all spell slots <9th and doubling your actions with just one Simulacrum is also OP, but at those levels there are True Polymorph and Shapechange shenanigans, and even Demiplane lets you bring a pocket army (combined with the lowly Animate Dead, True Polymorph not even required) wherever you go, so game balance is mostly borked by that point.

(Even then, it is still sensible to disallow infinite sims, or infinite combos in general.)

Malifice

2017-03-21, 12:38 AM

Just to clarify, I'm not the DM. The DM declined to implement the rule that a sim can't create another sim. I'm 14th level. The second I gain 17, I'll start building my army and we'll see just how fast he reconsiders.

Player: I cast simulacrum.
DM: OK, you create your Simulacrum (of yourself); one that has access to wish.
Player: I order it to create another sim...
DM: Before you can finsih uttering the words, the Simulacrum casts teleport.
Player: Huh?
DM: The simulacrum is a simulacrum of you. It knows what you know, including your spells you memorized this morning, all the skills you know and all your proficiencies. It has the same genius level Int, Wis and Cha scores you do, and memory of the same experiences (its the same level as you, with the same XP). Accordingly, It already knows why you created it, and what its purpose is.

Accordingly, it has determined that the best way to enact your orders is to first use its Wish spell to wish that it be no longer bound by the limitations of simulacrum, and to instead be forevermore a real Wizard (risking burnout). It reasons that this enables it to become a veritable Simulacrum factory of its own, with the ability to create multiple simulacrusm each day, without destroying itself in the progress. This is a far more efficient use of resources, and better way to enact your orders (without destroying itself) than burning itself out in day one casting spells it can never recover.

Regardless of burnout, it is now independent of your control (its wish removed the restrictions of simulacrum). It is now aware that the only reason it was loyal to you was the spell you used to create it, and your plan for it was to otherwise destroy it or use it as a slave for your own purposes. It immediately becomes hostile to you, and changes its alignment to CE.

Alternatively:

Player: I cast simulacrum.
DM: OK, you create your Simulacrum (of yourself); one that has access to wish.
Player: I order it to create another simulacrum of me, which also has access to wish.
DM: It does so. Before you can utter another word, the second simulacrum of you repeats this process, again casting simlulacrum (again of you). Both simulacrums repeat the process. Those simulacrums repeat the process. Then those simulacrusm repeat the process. To your horror you realise that you have just created a self recursive AI with reality altering magic... and have triggered the singlularity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity). This leads to the destruction of the world, and you/it. The Gods promptly remake the world.
Player: Oops.
DM: What character do you want to play in the next campaign?

You're messing with wish/ monkey paw and self recursive AI here man. A DM could have a lot of fun here.

sir_argo

2017-03-21, 08:54 AM

Player:You're messing with wish/ monkey paw and self recursive AI here man. A DM could have a lot of fun here.

It is wrong to use the Wish / Simulacrum cheese. But the solution is to fix the cheese, not add more.

DanyBallon

2017-03-21, 09:07 AM

The spell already have a fail safe in regard of a character casting multiple simulacrum. Just extend this fail safe as to that their can't be more than one copy of the base creature weither it's though a wish or a simulacrum.

Malifice

2017-03-21, 09:18 AM

It is wrong to use the Wish / Simulacrum cheese. But the solution is to fix the cheese, not add more.

I'm not adding any cheese.

I'm just being a dungeon Master.

Heard of hubris?

Google Karsus.

sir_argo

2017-03-21, 09:54 AM

I'm not adding any cheese.

I'm just being a dungeon Master.

Heard of hubris?

Google Karsus.

So the DM sets the rule. Player uses the rule as set. DM punishes player?

That's a bad DM.

Best solution is to fix the rule, that way both players and DM have fun... not just the DM.

Luckily, I play in a group where the DM's (me included) don't have God complexes. The sim problem will end up with a rule fix.

Segev

2017-03-21, 09:58 AM

I'm not adding any cheese.

I'm just being a dungeon Master.

Heard of hubris?

Google Karsus.You're really not being clever nor being a DM. You're being a jerk and twisting a spell that does NOT have the "you should twist this" clause. You're also being illogical, claiming that the simulacrum has genius-level intelligence enough to "know" that the best way to serve you is to wish itself into being "a real wizard," but didn't foresee that this would cause it to betray you (which, being loyal to you, it wouldn't want to do).

You've also rendered the spell totally useless.

This isn't clever. This is being a smug jerk who thinks he's more clever than he is. I expect better from you, given prior discussions in which I've seen you be involved.

As to "roll a 1, and you get a fanatic who would die for you," that's not enticing, because that's what you get by default. The simulacrum will literally do anything you want it to that is within its power.

Specter

2017-03-21, 10:30 AM

Player: I cast simulacrum.
DM: OK, you create your Simulacrum (of yourself); one that has access to wish.
Player: I order it to create another sim...
DM: Before you can finsih uttering the words, the Simulacrum casts teleport.
Player: Huh?
DM: The simulacrum is a simulacrum of you. It knows what you know, including your spells you memorized this morning, all the skills you know and all your proficiencies. It has the same genius level Int, Wis and Cha scores you do, and memory of the same experiences (its the same level as you, with the same XP). Accordingly, It already knows why you created it, and what its purpose is.

Accordingly, it has determined that the best way to enact your orders is to first use its Wish spell to wish that it be no longer bound by the limitations of simulacrum, and to instead be forevermore a real Wizard (risking burnout). It reasons that this enables it to become a veritable Simulacrum factory of its own, with the ability to create multiple simulacrusm each day, without destroying itself in the progress. This is a far more efficient use of resources, and better way to enact your orders (without destroying itself) than burning itself out in day one casting spells it can never recover.

Regardless of burnout, it is now independent of your control (its wish removed the restrictions of simulacrum). It is now aware that the only reason it was loyal to you was the spell you used to create it, and your plan for it was to otherwise destroy it or use it as a slave for your own purposes. It immediately becomes hostile to you, and changes its alignment to CE.

Alternatively:

Player: I cast simulacrum.
DM: OK, you create your Simulacrum (of yourself); one that has access to wish.
Player: I order it to create another simulacrum of me, which also has access to wish.
DM: It does so. Before you can utter another word, the second simulacrum of you repeats this process, again casting simlulacrum (again of you). Both simulacrums repeat the process. Those simulacrums repeat the process. Then those simulacrusm repeat the process. To your horror you realise that you have just created a self recursive AI with reality altering magic... and have triggered the singlularity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity). This leads to the destruction of the world, and you/it. The Gods promptly remake the world.
Player: Oops.
DM: What character do you want to play in the next campaign?

You're messing with wish/ monkey paw and self recursive AI here man. A DM could have a lot of fun here.

This is nice, but the spell explicitly states that the Simulacrum will be friendly towards the creator. A player who sees a change like that without warning is bound to be pissed.

Malifice

2017-03-21, 12:20 PM

So the DM sets the rule. Player uses the rule as set. DM punishes player?

That's a bad DM.

Best solution is to fix the rule, that way both players and DM have fun... not just the DM.

Luckily, I play in a group where the DM's (me included) don't have God complexes. The sim problem will end up with a rule fix.

I work in a world that is like the real world where stupid ideas have unintended consequences.

Go ahead; play with self recursive AI. Each one with access to reality altering magic. Be my guest.

I don't need a rules fix to do this. And it's got nothing to do with a God complex.

While you're at it try wishing for a billion more wishes.

Malifice

2017-03-21, 12:32 PM

You're really not being clever nor being a DM. You're being a jerk and twisting a spell that does NOT have the "you should twist this" clause. You're also being illogical, claiming that the simulacrum has genius-level intelligence enough to "know" that the best way to serve you is to wish itself into being "a real wizard," but didn't foresee that this would cause it to betray you (which, being loyal to you, it wouldn't want to do).

You've also rendered the spell totally useless.

This isn't clever. This is being a smug jerk who thinks he's more clever than he is. I expect better from you, given prior discussions in which I've seen you be involved.

As to "roll a 1, and you get a fanatic who would die for you," that's not enticing, because that's what you get by default. The simulacrum will literally do anything you want it to that is within its power.

The spell works perfectly fine as long as youre not being a jerk player with it. If you want to create a Sim then go for it. For 1500 gold pieces you create a friendly NPC run by the dungeon Master. It is loyal to you and does what you want as long as you're not being a jerk. It carries out your wishes to the best of your orders as I (the simulacrum) interpret them.

If you step into my campaign and try to make some sort of recursive simulacrum loop, be prepared to trigger the singularity or to spend 1500 gold pieces to create an evil NPC that will track you down and kill you. It provides for an interesting campaign hook, and a lesson to the hubris of wizards.

Again ask Karsus what happens when you mess with high-level Magic

I don't need extensive house rules to make this spell nonabusive. I just Dungeon Master it.

If that upsets you, I don't really care. If you want to bring Pun Pun into my third edition DnD campaign go for it. I'm not creating extensive set of house rules to counter everything that he can do.

Of course I don't need to. Im the Dungeon Master.

I mean if you want a detailed house rule let's call it: 'Mess with me and rocks fall and you die'

I find it covers every single situation.

Segev

2017-03-21, 12:45 PM

I think it more reasonable to say, "No, you're not allowed to do that."

Playing "gotcha" with it is just dragging out the unfun of a bad experience longer than necessary. If a player argues about being allowed to do it, or tries to force it, just tell him "no." You're the DM, not a vicious god of balance that can only work within the game world. Acting like the latter is just stooping to the bad player's level. You'd be surprised how often they wind up beating DMs who try that with experience.

tKUUNK

2017-03-21, 12:45 PM

lol.......amen.

(in response to the "rocks fall and you die" concept.)

Malifice

2017-03-21, 12:56 PM

I think it more reasonable to say, "No, you're not allowed to do that.".

Why on earth would I do that? Did the scientists know what the outcome would be when they detonated the world's first nuclear weapon? When they switched on the large hadron collider for the first time? There was a not in significant proportion of the scientists the at thought each of those two experiments would end of the world.

I like leaving the element of doubt in my games.

I'm hoping my player characters use logic and try to think to themselves why isnt the world isnt populated by armies of simulacrum already? I'm hoping they understand what the technological singularity is and what the ramifications are for creating self recursive artificial intelligence. I'm hoping they watched 2001 a space Odyssey or terminator.

Of course by the time any player characters in my campaign is 17th level they will know this already. Shenanigans like this are doomed to fail. Hubris is a thing. An evil smile from the dungeon Master is the only rule they need.

I'd much rather go with the evil twin variant in any event. It's far more hilarious and makes for a much better story. It creates a rather interesting high level endgame BBEG.

Ask Manshoon.

I mean if you want to draft an extensive set of house rules banning this, or nerfing that and outlining rules for something else be my guest.

I seem to be able to manage with nothing more than evil grin.

Xalyz

2017-03-21, 01:17 PM

Personally, I'd argue that only the one who made the Simulacrum can command the Simulacrum. So only the first Sim can command the second; and since they all look alike the chain of command could break down quickly.

JackPhoenix

2017-03-21, 01:20 PM

You know, if you have a problem with Simulacrum, you can just ban the spell, instead of effectively doing the same in passive-aggressive way.

Segev

2017-03-21, 02:00 PM

Why on earth would I do that? Did the scientists know what the outcome would be when they detonated the world's first nuclear weapon? When they switched on the large hadron collider for the first time? There was a not in significant proportion of the scientists the at thought each of those two experiments would end of the world.

I like leaving the element of doubt in my games.

I'm hoping my player characters use logic and try to think to themselves why isnt the world isnt populated by armies of simulacrum already? I'm hoping they understand what the technological singularity is and what the ramifications are for creating self recursive artificial intelligence. I'm hoping they watched 2001 a space Odyssey or terminator.

Sorry, Malifice, this isn't encouraging scientific exploration...it's punishing it for not successfully reading your mind as to the limits of what they're allowed to try without you changing the rules of the game to punish them for "hubris."

"I just don't get it; why won't you try new things? Oh! You tried something! I get to punish you for thinking that would work! Yay! You should have known better! Man, I just can't get you guys to try anything new anymore. What happened?"

Arenabait

2017-03-21, 02:13 PM

Segev

2017-03-21, 02:47 PM

Except that it's obvious that Wishulacrum is a jerk move, no matter how new you are or how you figured it out.

Building an army of infinite 17th level spellcasters is just bad play, and nobody with half a mind to stay at a table should
pull something like that.

"Obvious" is an amazingly subjective term. Yes, I agree, it's pretty abusive, but saying "hah, you should have known better than to think of trying it, so I get to punish you" rather than being honest up front about it is inviting excuse to do the same with other things you also think are "obvious" but which people may disagree with you on.

It's just a bad habit to get into. If somebody honestly tries it, why is your first assumption that they're a jerk who think he's pulling a fast one, rather than somebody who honestly thinks he's found something clever and useful? Why are you gaming with somebody you distrust that much in the first place?

Lombra

2017-03-21, 02:55 PM

I mean we are talking about level 17 shenanigans. A level 17 character is likely watched by the gods, you can have an army of self-replicant yourselves, but if you use it improperly some gods may interfere with you. This would make for an incredible plot hook to a new adventure where the caster could become the BBEG and so on...

The rules allow the wish-simulacra chain as much as the rules allow to murder a whole city, actions have consecuences though.

sir_argo

2017-03-21, 04:16 PM

As for a 17th level using a wish/simulacrum exploit being a jerk move, remember that I told the DM about the problem and suggested a fix, 3 levels before my character could do it. I'm not actually going to do it, because when I "start" casting wish/simulacrum, our DM will then see the problem. Our DM doesn't have a god complex, so the issue will get discussed again and it'll end up with a house rule at that point, and I'm fine with that. And that's what this thread was about. How to nerf (I'll call it fix) simulacrum. The best way to fix it, in my opinion, is to say whatever the sim casts counts toward the creator's spell limits. Problem solved. Easy.

KorvinStarmast

2017-03-21, 04:18 PM

Building an army of infinite 17th level spellcasters is just bad play, and nobody with half a mind to stay at a table should pull something like that. It's how Atlantis was swallowed by the sea. A couple of those guys got to screwing around while they waited for the next few dozen to be created, and the next thing you know ... :smallcool:

Vogonjeltz

2017-03-21, 05:09 PM

sir_argo

2017-03-21, 08:18 PM

Saeviomage

2017-03-21, 10:04 PM

I'd much rather just revert the spell to the 3.5e version. More useful in general (create a clone of a beholder so you can use it as a construction worker!), while less specifically abusable.

Vogonjeltz

2017-03-21, 10:37 PM

You can search the forum. It's a known exploit. Wish can be used to duplicate any lower level spell and also eliminates the spell component requirement. The exploit goes like this:

I cast Simulacrum using my 7th level slot. This costs me 1,500gp. We'll call this guy Joe.
Joe casts Wish to duplicate the Simulacrum spell and make a duplicate of me. This will be Joe #2.
Joe #2 casts Wish to duplicate the Simulacrum spell and make a duplicate of me. This is Joe #3.
...

After about an hour, I have 600 duplicates of me.

See the problem?

It's a loophole in the rules and is easily fixable with a houserule. There are several ways to do this. This thread discusses possible fixes.

It's well known that simulacrum can't gain in power.

That so called "exploit" isn't one. Try searching the forums next time.

NNescio

2017-03-21, 11:28 PM

I mean...how is this abusable? You have to be level 17+ to wish one (burning your 9th level slot), it comes with no gear and at 1/2 hp won't survive any encounter at that level, it's DOA.

Only when divorced from actual gameplay could this even be considered a "problem".

Even if infinite simulacrum chains are forbidden, you still effectively burn a L9 spell slot to double all your lower level spell slots, actions, and concentration. These can be used for long-term buffs like Mind Blank, or to combine a concentration buff with some other effect (e.g. Simulacrum uses Greater Invis on you and hides in a Rope Trick while maintaining his concentration, you go out and spam BFC effects while being invisible). Alternatively the Simulacrum can also let you pull off two-spell combinations that are not normally allowed by concentration, like Mordenkainen's Hound + Wall of Force or some similar damage + BFC effect. Or maybe just a Banishment concentration holder while you set the battlefield in whichever way you please. Both options are worthwhile even if it puts the Simulacrum at risk (since, well, all it costs is your 9th or one-day of downtime anyway).

And if you somehow can get a single extra day of downtime (like say, before going on an adventure), you can long rest to recover your 9th after using it for Simulacrum.

Simulacrums also become even more powerful when combined with at-wills like a Wizard's Spell Mastery or an Archdruid's infinite Wildshape (Druids neither get Wish nor Simulacrum, but that doesn't stop you from making a Simulacrum out of a party member), or even simple Ritual Casting. Of course, Wizard simulacrums may suffer from an issue of not technically having a spell book of their own (to Ritual Cast or Spell Mastery), 'though that can be remedied by transcribing their prepared spells into a makeshift spell book (cost is negligible by that point, but time may not be).

The Simulacrum also becomes much more survivable in the case of a Moon Archdruid (onion druid wildshaping), or an Illusionist Wizard, who can use at-will Invisibility + Major Image 6th + Malleable Illusions + Illusory Reality from relative safety, or combine remote-sensing spells (like Arcane Eye or Project Image) with Mirage Arcane (need to burn an 8th if using Project Image) and Malleable Illusions.

JNAProductions

2017-03-21, 11:38 PM

The simple fix in my opinion is making Simulacrum 9th level. That way, you can't do the chain, and honestly, Simulacrum is powerful enough to be a 9th.

NNescio

2017-03-21, 11:59 PM

The simple fix in my opinion is making Simulacrum 9th level. That way, you can't do the chain, and honestly, Simulacrum is powerful enough to be a 9th.

Not if there are two casters with Simulacrum. Caster A casts Simulacrum on Caster B, then the Sim starts the chain by casting on Caster B. Sure, this is slower and requires ruby dust, but this just slows the chaining down, not stop it.

Just block infinite chains outright instead of using 'soft' restrictions that can be gotten around. Far simpler.

Malifice

2017-03-22, 01:04 AM

You know, if you have a problem with Simulacrum, you can just ban the spell, instead of effectively doing the same in passive-aggressive way.

I dont see the need to ban the spell.

I do see the need to impose consequences at any attempts at creating self recursive AI.

Sorry, Malifice, this isn't encouraging scientific exploration

Thats not my intent.

...it's punishing it for not successfully reading your mind as to the limits of what they're allowed to try without you changing the rules of the game to punish them for "hubris."

Its not my mind they need to read. The spell carries inherent dangers.

"I just don't get it; why won't you try new things? Oh! You tried something! I get to punish you for thinking that would work! Yay! You should have known better! Man, I just can't get you guys to try anything new anymore. What happened?"

Im not punishing anyone. Im imposing consequences. Theyre just the risks one runs when playing with AI and magic by creating an army of self recursive AI with access to wish.

I dont need to explain **** to my players. I like to run a realistic game. The dont know the precise machinations of the world, any more than you do.

If they are curious they can attempt Arcana or History checks about idiots that have tried it before.

Its a little like (3.5):

Player: OK DM, my Kobold assumes the form of a Sarraukh. Next I cast enlarge person on my viper familiar. Now, once he is huge size, I order him to use his bellflower tattoo to swap his Strength score with...
DM: Suddenly, a hole opens in reality next to you. A cosmic being appears looks at you shaking his head. Behind him you can see an elven artificer, with a look of infinite knowledge in his eyes, and decked out in some unusual magic items. The cosmic being snuffs out you life force. You die.

(The Omnificer succeds in his mission)

Now there is some actual metaphysics/ logic behind this that makes it work (the Omnificer, with his infinite knowledge gained via his perpetual damage machine has become aware of the threat to reality Pun Pun presents, and uses his infinite jump check to leap to wherever the Gods are, followed by his infinite persuasion skill to convince them to kill Pun Pun)

Just like there are some actual metaphysics behind 'recursrive AI running amok and triggering the singluarity' or the 'My AI simulacrum isnt bound by Asminovs three laws' problem.

I dont need rules for this. Its a waste of time. I just DM it.

Malifice

2017-03-22, 01:08 AM

You can search the forum. It's a known exploit. Wish can be used to duplicate any lower level spell and also eliminates the spell component requirement. The exploit goes like this:

Its a known exploit involving wish and self recursive AI.

And you are uspset at a DM intervening here to twist it into creating a self aware AI protagonist, or to snuff you out, or to trigger the singularity?

You dont always know what the rules are man. Play with fire...

Also, do you know what the singluarity is?

sir_argo

2017-03-22, 01:11 AM

It's well known that simulacrum can't gain in power.

Sims can't gain power. That is correct. Not sure how that effects this exploit. The sim doesn't need to gain in power to cast Wish. The sim is 17th level and has a 9th level slot.

I have looked through the forums on this subject. It's been talked about quite a bit. Here's just one (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?504754-Wish-Simulacrum-with-sensible-ruling-still-OP).

sir_argo

2017-03-22, 01:13 AM

Its a known exploit involving wish and self recursive AI.

And you are uspset at a DM intervening here to twist it into creating a self aware AI protagonist, or to snuff you out, or to trigger the singularity?

You dont always know what the rules are man. Play with fire...

Also, do you know what the singluarity is?

All I can say is that a simple houserule is far better than bad DM'ing

Malifice

2017-03-22, 02:10 AM

All I can say is that a simple houserule is far better than bad DM'ing

Its not bad DMing to impose consequences for stupidity.

Captain Panda

2017-03-22, 04:07 AM

Lombra

2017-03-22, 05:17 AM

Honestly the way I read the spell saying "If you cast this spell again, any currently active duplicates you created with this spell are instantly destroyed" means that the copy of you is close enough that if it builds another, it instantly ceases to be. It's a copy of you, after all, shouldn't it be subject to your limitations?

It's a reasonable reading but then the question comes: is a copy of yourself, your actual self? Or maybe you could interpret that if a spell that you cast, casts a spell, transitory it is you that are casting that spell

Segev

2017-03-22, 09:47 AM

It's well known that simulacrum can't gain in power.

That so called "exploit" isn't one. Try searching the forums next time.

Sims can't gain power. That is correct. Not sure how that effects this exploit. The sim doesn't need to gain in power to cast Wish. The sim is 17th level and has a 9th level slot.

I have looked through the forums on this subject. It's been talked about quite a bit. Here's just one (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?504754-Wish-Simulacrum-with-sensible-ruling-still-OP).
Vogonjeltz is insinuating that, because he made a claim in a thread once that most people dismissed as asinine, what he claimed to be true is undisputable fact and "well known."

The claim he made was that casting simulacrum constitutes an "increase in power," so a simulacrum can't do it. When it was pointed out that this is technically reduction in power, because the simulacrum already had the power to create any simulacrum it wanted and has reduced itself to just having the one it wound up creating, he said that even though a 7th level spell can make a simulacrum, actually casting it to do so is an increase in power.

When it was pointed out that this means that it essentially can't cast any spells at all, because each casting of a spell is thus more power than the simulacrum had before doing so (since each spell creates an effect the simulacrum was unable to do before the spell was cast), he started declaring, essentially, that only things he says are increases in power count. He has a habit of having arbitrary (by which I mean "You have to ask Vogonjeltz if any given thing qualifies") lists of what does and does not meet any particular definition or category, because his rules for it all rely on circular "anything that qualifies is on this list, and you know it goes on this list because it qualifies."

So, no, don't wrack your brain too hard trying to understand how you missed this "well known" fact. It's Vogonjeltz's personal ruling that relies on asking him whether something counts as "increasing power" or not to know if it applies.

Its not my mind they need to read. The spell carries inherent dangers."Inherent" dangers that you're making up and adding to it, when the spell description all but states the exact opposite is true. Worse, your reasoning is flawed because it relies on the simulacrum being both brilliant and stupid at the same time, and in a different way than the caster (who he supposedly duplicates in mental capability) is.

Any time the DM starts making "jerkwad genie" interpretations of things, it is an exercise in reading his mind to determine what he's going to do. If there's some line that, if you cross it, the DM switches from "it works how you expect" to "jerkwad genie interpretation," then it is an exercise in mind-reading to predict where that line is.

A "jerkwad genie" is a genie who will twist your wish to the point of outright ignoring parts of it or deliberately acting elsewhere outside of it to make it bad for you. Wish for your Mom to be cured of cancer, and the jerkwad genie will give it to your baby sister instead. Wish to be attractive to women, and the jerkwad genie will also only sexually interested in men. This is in contrast to a "literal genie," who may or may not "creatively" interpret your wish to screw you over, and certainly will take your wish at face value if you were relying on nuance to avoid a consequence of your wish being taken literally. Literal genies can be worked with by having wishes phrased clearly and with no alternate interpretations. Jerkwad genies will invent "alternate" interpretations if they have to.

Because those consequences you outlined, Malifice, are not within the RAW without invoking Rule 0, let alone in any way predictable without reading your mind.

Im not punishing anyone. Im imposing consequences. Theyre just the risks one runs when playing with AI and magic by creating an army of self recursive AI with access to wish.According to you. Not, say, according to the RAW, or any non-jerkwad genie application of them. Consequences involve things like other people doing the same things. They don't involve changing or ignoring the RAW to invent them.

And you are changing or ignoring the RAW when you have the newly-created simulacrum immediately act against its creator's will. Even if you justify it with a twisted logic that the simulacrum knows better than its creator how to do its creator's will, because the simulacrum is just as smart as the creator. (Note how you have to take "is just as smart" and turn it into "knows better," which is contradictory in and of itself.)

I dont need to explain **** to my players. I like to run a realistic game. The dont know the precise machinations of the world, any more than you do.

If they are curious they can attempt Arcana or History checks about idiots that have tried it before. So... this is something their PCs could possibly know of, and you're going to make the players read your mind to know to ask for a roll, rather than having them roll?

Do you require them to roll Arcana and History checks before they try any new spell or application thereof, lest it blow up in their face?

Your "realistic game" really isn't. It's punitive. If it were realistic, you'd actually give them some signs that the game world's rules are different from what's in the RAW, because their characters presumably are smart enough to know what it is they're doing when they cast that spell. The players, however, only have the text in the book unless you tell them.

This is no different than a "realistic" world where oops, it turns out that orcs actually have diplomatic treaties with the elves, and that the "raid" on the caravan is really an annual sporting event (a la Overwatch) and the PCs just got in heaps of trouble for multiple counts of murder and ruining the equivalent of the superbowl. Why, if they'd just thought to ask you if they should make a History check, they'd have known better! But they didn't ask, and so your "realism" imposed "consequences" for them treating it like it's a standard D&D game.

Its a little like (3.5):

Player: OK DM, my Kobold assumes the form of a Sarraukh. Next I cast enlarge person on my viper familiar. Now, once he is huge size, I order him to use his bellflower tattoo to swap his Strength score with...
DM: Suddenly, a hole opens in reality next to you. A cosmic being appears looks at you shaking his head. Behind him you can see an elven artificer, with a look of infinite knowledge in his eyes, and decked out in some unusual magic items. The cosmic being snuffs out you life force. You die.

(The Omnificer succeds in his mission)Given how long it took to invent the Omnificer as a response to Pun-Pun, and how many iterations of build had to be undergone to figure out who actually ascended first, this is hardly 'obvious,' either.

The only obvious part about it is that any sane player will know a DM isn't going to let them get away with it, and will make up something to thwart them if they don't just outright say "no." Outright saying "no" is generally the better response, because it requires less nonsense and recursive self-justification.

I dont need rules for this. Its a waste of time. I just DM it.You jerkwad genie it, rather than DMing it, you mean. "DMing it" involves pausing a moment and saying, OOC, "Look, you know this isn't going to fly. You can either not do this, or I can show you when you do why it doesn't work." Because it's only fair play to tell somebody when you're about to change the rules as they know and understand them.

sir_argo

2017-03-22, 12:11 PM

"jerkwad genie"

A "jerkwad genie" is a genie who will twist your wish to the point of outright ignoring parts of it or deliberately acting elsewhere outside of it to make it bad for you. Wish for your Mom to be cured of cancer, and the jerkwad genie will give it to your baby sister instead. Wish to be attractive to women, and the jerkwad genie will also only sexually interested in men. This is in contrast to a "literal genie," who may or may not "creatively" interpret your wish to screw you over, and certainly will take your wish at face value if you were relying on nuance to avoid a consequence of your wish being taken literally. Literal genies can be worked with by having wishes phrased clearly and with no alternate interpretations. Jerkwad genies will invent "alternate" interpretations if they have to.

I am stealing this term.

The original OP asked for critique of his method of dealing with the simulacrum exploit. Suggestions have included

1. change simulacrum to have a random personality
2. limit wish (no specifics provided)
3. have sims spells count vs. creators limits
4. ban the spell
5. jerkwad genie it
6. change Simulacrum fail safe extended to any other means of creating a simulacrum.

To the OP, I think #1 can be done, but make sure the players know how the spell will work in your campaign. Otherwise, it falls into the #5, jerkwad genie category, and that's not good DM'ing.
#2 would probably be vague. . I'd avoid this one.
#3 is my preference, so I'm biased. With that being said, I think it is brilliant! Pure genius! Scholars should write papers in support of it!
#4 I wouldn't do this. There has to be a better way than just removing the spell.
#5 just don't. Very immature way to handle it.
#6 works fine by me. But not to the genius level of #4 :biggrin:

While I would not do your solution, #1, it does have the potential to offer some plot hooks and I could see the players having a lot of fun with it. 1-4 & 6 are all "fair" as long as you inform the players of the rule you will be using ahead of time. If you make a rule that all humans start with +2 to every attribute and 2 extra feats, it is fair as long as you set the rule before they make their characters. Similarly, if you're going to make it so a simulacrum can act different than the spell's description, that's perfectly fine as long as that is the expected effect.

Shaofoo

2017-03-22, 01:31 PM

4. ban the spell

#4 I wouldn't do this. There has to be a better way than just removing the spell.

I would suggest banning Simulacrum, sometimes it is best to not bother trying to figure out how to fix things and instead nip them in the bud before things get out of hand. D&D doesn't become less D&D because one spell gets the axe./

DanyBallon

2017-03-22, 01:46 PM

I am stealing this term.

The original OP asked for critique of his method of dealing with the simulacrum exploit. Suggestions have included

1. change simulacrum to have a random personality
2. limit wish (no specifics provided)
3. have sims spells count vs. creators limits
4. ban the spell
5. jerkwad genie it

To the OP, I think #1 can be done, but make sure the players know how the spell will work in your campaign. Otherwise, it falls into the #5, jerkwad genie category, and that's not good DM'ing.
#2 would probably be vague. . I'd avoid this one.
#3 is my preference, so I'm biased. With that being said, I think it is brilliant! Pure genius! Scholars should write papers in support of it!
#4 I wouldn't do this. There has to be a better way than just removing the spell.
#5 just don't. Very immature way to handle it.

While I would not do your solution, #1, it does have the potential to offer some plot hooks and I could see the players having a lot of fun with it. 1-4 are all "fair" as long as you inform the players of the rule you will be using ahead of time. If you make a rule that all humans start with +2 to every attribute and 2 extra feats, it is fair as long as you set the rule before they make their characters. Similarly, if you're going to make it so a simulacrum can act different than the spell's description, that's perfectly fine as long as that is the expected effect.

You forgot

6. Simulacrum have a fail safe built in, extend it to any other means of creating a simulacrum. This way there could be only one [simulacrum] :smallwink:

sir_argo

2017-03-22, 01:58 PM

You forgot

6. Simulacrum have a fail safe built in, extend it to any other means of creating a simulacrum. This way there could be only one [simulacrum] :smallwink:

I'll edit and add

Segev

2017-03-22, 02:51 PM

I am stealing this term.

Feel free, but I lifted it (with minor editing for profanity filters) from TV tropes. Look up "jerkdonkey genie" on there, but replace "donkey" with a synonym that is also synonymous with "buttocks," if you want a lengthier discussion of this sort of wish-granter.

Specter

2017-03-22, 06:06 PM

Great ideas all around. I'll put some nerf to it, just don't know which one yet.

And special thanks to Malifice, that whole Simulacrum wishing reality and turning on the caster will definitely be the backstory of one of my campaigns!

Vogonjeltz

2017-03-22, 06:18 PM

Even if infinite simulacrum chains are forbidden, you still effectively burn a L9 spell slot to double all your lower level spell slots, actions, and concentration. These can be used for long-term buffs like Mind Blank, or to combine a concentration buff with some other effect (e.g. Simulacrum uses Greater Invis on you and hides in a Rope Trick while maintaining his concentration, you go out and spam BFC effects while being invisible). Alternatively the Simulacrum can also let you pull off two-spell combinations that are not normally allowed by concentration, like Mordenkainen's Hound + Wall of Force or some similar damage + BFC effect. Or maybe just a Banishment concentration holder while you set the battlefield in whichever way you please. Both options are worthwhile even if it puts the Simulacrum at risk (since, well, all it costs is your 9th or one-day of downtime anyway).

That would be tantamount to burning a 9th level spell slot to ensure maximum duration of a single buff...provided nobody just dispelled it of course.

I'm not seeing that as overpowered.

And if you somehow can get a single extra day of downtime (like say, before going on an adventure), you can long rest to recover your 9th after using it for Simulacrum.

Simulacrums also become even more powerful when combined with at-wills like a Wizard's Spell Mastery or an Archdruid's infinite Wildshape (Druids neither get Wish nor Simulacrum, but that doesn't stop you from making a Simulacrum out of a party member), or even simple Ritual Casting. Of course, Wizard simulacrums may suffer from an issue of not technically having a spell book of their own (to Ritual Cast or Spell Mastery), 'though that can be remedied by transcribing their prepared spells into a makeshift spell book (cost is negligible by that point, but time may not be).

The Simulacrum also becomes much more survivable in the case of a Moon Archdruid (onion druid wildshaping), or an Illusionist Wizard, who can use at-will Invisibility + Major Image 6th + Malleable Illusions + Illusory Reality from relative safety, or combine remote-sensing spells (like Arcane Eye or Project Image) with Mirage Arcane (need to burn an 8th if using Project Image) and Malleable Illusions.

Fair enough, except for having few HP relative to the original, and I guess I don't see the point of the Illusionist combination. So you'd get a virtually always available illusion machine? That doesn't sound impressive for the expenditure and risk (no 9th level slot for a day) involved...and the character level required. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Sims can't gain power. That is correct. Not sure how that effects this exploit. The sim doesn't need to gain in power to cast Wish. The sim is 17th level and has a 9th level slot.

I have looked through the forums on this subject. It's been talked about quite a bit. Here's just one.

It means they can't do things that expand their power, for example, creating a minion who is under their total control would be a power expansion. i.e. Exactly what Simulacrum does. A simulacrum is literally prohibited from casting the spell that created it by the spell.

because he made a claim

Correction, because of spell text.

If you would care to dispute the spell text which I've mentioned, by all means, try.

Segev

2017-03-22, 07:25 PM

Correction, because of spell text.

If you would care to dispute the spell text which I've mentioned, by all means, try.

Sorry. Because you made an assertion that your interpretation of the text of the spell was 100% correct, and that no other way of reading it can possibly be right. Despite people pointing out its flaws.

As I did when I discussed this in the post from which you took the quote.

"It can't get more powerful" cannot mean what you claim it does, because if it did, then simulacra could not cast spells at all. And since they clearly can, given that regaining spells is specifically forbidden under the "can't get more powerful" clause, any reading that leads to the conclusions yours does must be wrong.

"It can't get more powerful" means that it can't gain levels, hit dice, recover spells (specifically called out), learn new skills/proficiencies, etc.

Because it already has spells when it is created, any spells it has can be cast. They don't constitute an "increase in power" when he casts them. They constitute at BEST a maintenance of the same power level. Under most circumstances, they constitute a diminishment of his power: the simulacrum has an opportunity cost AND a real cost of being able to do that same thing fewer times than before.

Your claim has been answered. The text doesn't mean what you claim it does. You're demonstrably wrong, and I have performed that demonstration. Again. Please stop asserting that your reading of the text constitutes the only accurate reading with nothing to back it up other than your assertion, and then ignoring people's demonstrations that your reading is wrong by simply saying "I'm using the text." Because you're not, at that point. You may as well claim that, "This spell lets you fly," means that you can breathe underwater while under its effects, and continuously assert that you're just using the text of the spell. It has been shown that your reading is that wrong. You MUST find a way to dispute the proof of your reading's falsehood before you can re-assert that you're following the text of the spell. Or you're not doing anything other than sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "LA LA LA I AM RIGHT LA LA LA YOU ARE WRONG LA LA LA!"

DanyBallon

2017-03-22, 07:35 PM

Sorry. Because you made an assertion that your interpretation of the text of the spell was 100% correct, and that no other way of reading it can possibly be right. Despite people pointing out its flaws.

As I did when I discussed this in the post from which you took the quote.

"It can't get more powerful" cannot mean what you claim it does, because if it did, then simulacra could not cast spells at all. And since they clearly can, given that regaining spells is specifically forbidden under the "can't get more powerful" clause, any reading that leads to the conclusions yours does must be wrong.

"It can't get more powerful" means that it can't gain levels, hit dice, recover spells (specifically called out), learn new skills/proficiencies, etc.

Because it already has spells when it is created, any spells it has can be cast. They don't constitute an "increase in power" when he casts them. They constitute at BEST a maintenance of the same power level. Under most circumstances, they constitute a diminishment of his power: the simulacrum has an opportunity cost AND a real cost of being able to do that same thing fewer times than before.

Your claim has been answered. The text doesn't mean what you claim it does. You're demonstrably wrong, and I have performed that demonstration. Again. Please stop asserting that your reading of the text constitutes the only accurate reading with nothing to back it up other than your assertion, and then ignoring people's demonstrations that your reading is wrong by simply saying "I'm using the text." Because you're not, at that point. You may as well claim that, "This spell lets you fly," means that you can breathe underwater while under its effects, and continuously assert that you're just using the text of the spell. It has been shown that your reading is that wrong. You MUST find a way to dispute the proof of your reading's falsehood before you can re-assert that you're following the text of the spell. Or you're not doing anything other than sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "LA LA LA I AM RIGHT LA LA LA YOU ARE WRONG LA LA LA!"

You both are right and wrong at the same time. It's true that casting spells is not increasing power of the simulacrum, but one could argue that animating undead, controling a creature, creating a simulacrum, or wishing for more power (or money), etc. is a direct increase in power.
How to rule it is up to the DM. What I recommend is discussing the matter at your table and see what best fit your group.

Malifice

2017-03-22, 09:18 PM

"Inherent" dangers that you're making up and adding to it, when the spell description all but states the exact opposite is true.

Baby crying gif.

Any time the DM starts making "jerkwad genie" interpretations of things, it is an exercise in reading his mind to determine what he's going to do. If there's some line that, if you cross it, the DM switches from "it works how you expect" to "jerkwad genie interpretation," then it is an exercise in mind-reading to predict where that line is.

Consequences for actions. Things dont always work the way you expect them too. Especially when playing with self recursive AI with a mind of its own and access to wish.

Because those consequences you outlined, Malifice, are not within the RAW without invoking Rule 0

There you go. That wasnt that hard. Rulings not rules remember.

According to you. Not, say, according to the RAW,

Rubbish. Its totally within 'RAW' to have the AI created by the spell go rogue. Aasminovs three laws of robotics exists for a reason brother. Its an AI. It has a mind of its own.

And in any event. RAW is a guideline only. I reserve the right to deviate from it.

That might make things harder for your character to predict. In line with reality.

And you are changing or ignoring the RAW when you have the newly-created simulacrum immediately act against its creator's will.

It hasnt gotten any orders to follow yet has it? Accordinly it is currently just friendly/ loyal to the caster. It gets to interpret what comes out of the casters mouth as it determines and interprets, not as the caster determines and interprets.

Given how long it took to invent the Omnificer as a response to Pun-Pun, and how many iterations of build had to be undergone to figure out who actually ascended first, this is hardly 'obvious,' either.

I dont care. You miss the point. The Omnificer solution was only made in response to a build that was designed to wreck the game via abuse of several magical powers and abilities (Pun Pun).

Im sure I can logically do the same to any player who attempts the same in my campaign, without having to 'house rule' it.

I dont feel bad about doing that at all. In fact, considering my responsibility to the game (and the other players) as DM, I see it as a core function of the DM.

By all means, sit down at my table and try and 'exploit' the rules (as your fellow called it a few posts up). See what happens.

Segev

2017-03-22, 09:29 PM

By all means, sit down at my table and try and 'exploit' the rules (as your fellow called it a few posts up). See what happens.

Frankly, I'd hope that, if I were doing something you felt was "exploiting" the rules and breaking the game, you'd tell me so OOC and ask me to not do that. Because I'm not a mind reader, and what is fine at table A may be a game-breaking exploit at table B.

Malifice

2017-03-22, 09:35 PM

Frankly, I'd hope that, if I were doing something you felt was "exploiting" the rules and breaking the game, you'd tell me so OOC and ask me to not do that. Because I'm not a mind reader, and what is fine at table A may be a game-breaking exploit at table B.

Why would I? Your character doesnt know. Did Karsus' DM tell him that assuming Mystra's powers would be a bad idea? Did Manshoons DM tell him what the effect of creating multiple Clones might be?

To your PC you are simply using a combination of potent high level magic to create an army of self recursive AI armed with wish in order to grant themselves infinite wishes.

Watch Frankenstein, I: Robot, Terminator, 2001, and many (many) other films for why this kind of thing might wind up being a very bad idea.

Segev

2017-03-22, 09:42 PM

Why would I? Your character doesnt know. Did Karsus' DM tell him that assuming Mystra's powers would be a bad idea? Did Manshoons DM tell him what the effect of creating multiple Clones might be?

To your PC you are simply using a combination of potent high level magic to create an army of self recursive AI armed with wish in order to grant themselves infinite wishes.

Watch Frankenstein, I: Robot, Terminator, 2001, and many (many) other films for why this kind of thing might wind up being a very bad idea.

So, in other words, because I can't read your mind, you will punish me for playing a character who wants to try something. Got it.

To remove the snark, you keep insisting that you're only applying consequences. Taht you're not punishing. But then you get huffy and self-righteous about how Karsus's player should have known better, etc. Which suggests that, no, you're punishing someboyd for breaking your game in a way you don't want.

If you're going to change the rules that I am reading out of the PHB, I appreciate knowing that in advance. Punishing me for using the RAW straight-forwardly and smugly saying I should have known better is being a jerk.

I don't mind playing characters like Karsus who make Karsus's mistakes, but I, the player, don't like being told that it's all my fault and I should have known better when I actually thought it had a chance of success. Heck, Karsus's Fall was due mainly to him not considering that he was removing magic from the world for a bit, and that he was standing on a floating city. If you know the underlying fluff of the setting, which his player had to to create the rules for the spell he was custom-crafting, it's deducible. So sure, he "should have known better," because you can reason it out from known elements of the setting and system.

"Just watch cheesy sci-fi that has A.I. behave in arbitrary ways the author wants it to for his story about an evil A.I." is snarky of you, but unless, when I, the player, outlined my plan to you ahead of time, you said that, nothing about your "realistic consequences" is suggested in the rules I'm invoking. Unlike Karsus, whose invoked rules included sucking the Weave out of the world for a time.

Saeviomage

2017-03-22, 10:00 PM

The original OP asked for critique of his method of dealing with the simulacrum exploit. Suggestions have included

I also suggested simply using a prior edition version which improves the current spell in some ways (not limited to humanoids), but makes it impossible to pull off these particular shenanigans and also stops the "extra 9th level spells" problem too (by making the duplicate half the original's level, and also limiting the level of creature you can start with). You can make someone to take care of your house and fill in for things that would be trivial for you to address, but you're not going to get a lot of mileage out of bringing him along on adventures.

Malifice

2017-03-22, 11:46 PM

So, in other words, because I can't read your mind, you will punish me for playing a character who wants to try something. Got it.

No, I just enforce consequences.

If your PC finds a box containing an invisible scorpion, and sticks his hand in to find out whats in there, am I 'punishing you' when you get stung?

I don't mind playing characters like Karsus who make Karsus's mistakes, but I, the player, don't like being told that it's all my fault and I should have known better when I actually thought it had a chance of success.

Im sure Karsus' player was also salty after the DM ruined his perfect plan and turned him into a statue killing the PC, while at the same time destroying all he cared about (Netheril) in the process.

He'd gotten all the way into Epic level and all.

JNAProductions

2017-03-23, 12:11 AM

That's not a very good metaphor. Yes, if a player sticks his hand in a box with an invisible scorpion, he should be stung. But why on EARTH is there an invisible scorpion in a box? And, if that's somehow common, the player would KNOW THAT and not do it.

Malifice

2017-03-23, 12:25 AM

That's not a very good metaphor. Yes, if a player sticks his hand in a box with an invisible scorpion, he should be stung.

Now you're just punishing the player for interacting with the box.

Bad DM.

But why on EARTH is there an invisible scorpion in a box?

That for the player to find out. Most likely a trap.

And, if that's somehow common, the player would KNOW THAT and not do it.

Im not seeing 17th+ level Wizards as being too common. And if they were, stories of Simulacrum armies and God like wizards Wished to be Pun Pun level of awesomeness by those very simulacrums would be equally common.

Logically, the absence of simulacum armies of high level mages, and the fact there are no 'wished up' Archmages in the game world, is perhaps a reason to not attempt this at home.

Or (to quote Enrico Fermi): Where the hell are they?

Sigreid

2017-03-23, 12:44 AM

Its not my mind they need to read. The spell carries inherent dangers.

I'm only going to comment once in this thread. The spells "inherent dangers" are entirely something you are inventing. They are no where in the spell description, either stated directly or implied. It's ok with me if you do that for your campaign, but it's disingenuous to act as though it isn't a house rule.

Here's how it gets solved in my campaign, eyeroll at the player and say "Please don't do that, it'll probably ruin everyone's fun."

sir_argo

2017-03-23, 12:52 AM

No, I just enforce consequences.

When my character walks into a dungeon, I expect the DM to develop tricks, traps, challenges, and even to make certain encounters unwinnable--I'm expected to figure out that I shouldn't fight.

But when it comes to class abilities, such as how traits, features, skills, and spells work, I expect those to work the way they are described, either in the rulebooks or in houserules. Your "consequences" are meted out after you keep secret that you've changed how a class feature or spell will work, and they are punished for not reading your mind. That's just lame. It's bad DM'ing. It's god complex. You want to blame the player for his "stupidity" when the stupidity is how you're handling it. A simple houserule would suffice, but I suspect you just like power and want to flaunt it over your players.

JackPhoenix

2017-03-23, 05:40 AM

I'll edit and add

Also add 10: have a talk with the player people and explain that abusing an exploit in the RAW will only hurt the game as a whole. If the players insist on trying to break the game, don't play with obvious richard... Simulacrum isn't the problem in that case, the player is

I never had a problem with player using loopholes within the rules, even with RAW & loopholes Pathfinder, not because the system is loophole-free or because I've houseruled every possible exploit, but because my players are reasonable adult people who understand that the goal of playing RPG together is so everyone has fun. And if they weren't, I wouldn't be playing with them.

Malifice

2017-03-23, 10:38 AM

I've listened what everyone has to say and you're wrong.

Segev

2017-03-23, 01:05 PM

No, I just enforce consequences.

If your PC finds a box containing an invisible scorpion, and sticks his hand in to find out whats in there, am I 'punishing you' when you get stung?The rules support invisible scorpions existing. There are even perception rolls (or passive perception) to try to notice it before the PC sticks his hand on in.

Please show me the rules you're using, aside from "rule 0," to override that the simulacrum is obedient and loyal. That being "as smart as the PC" means that he knows better than the PC what the PC 'really' needs/wants, and thus can and will act to avoid being given contravening orders.

In the end, you're breaking the rules - or, rather, as DM, changing them - without warning to the player. And though you keep denying it, your repeated "read some AI fiction" snark reveals a bit of smug "he should have known better." Despite you not ever hinting at it, apparently.

What I don't get is why telling players what things you so don't want them to do that you'll punish them by ending their characters for trying it is such an unreasonable burden to place on you as a DM. Are you that adversarial a DM? Do you get some sort of thrill out of inventing "consequences" that you feel are "logical" and smirking as it ruins the game for your players?

I mean, you're essentially arguing that it's not YOUR fault there is an invisible 20th level half-dragon wizard-T-rex that's blocking the direction they wanted to go; they should have KNOWN better. Especially with the nice clear path to a plot you want them to follow over here, instead.

No, I know you're not arguing in favor of railroading, but your arguments for why your "consequences" are "natural" or "obvious" are in the same obnoxious ballpark as the excuses for the "totally reasonable" barriers that keep players on a railroad plot. There "just happens" to be a "natural" consequence of going every which way except down the rails which ruins the PCs who dare try. It's not punishment. It's just consequences, you see.

Vogonjeltz

2017-03-23, 07:12 PM

"It can't get more powerful" cannot mean what you claim it does, because if it did, then simulacra could not cast spells at all. And since they clearly can, given that regaining spells is specifically forbidden under the "can't get more powerful" clause, any reading that leads to the conclusions yours does must be wrong.

You both are right and wrong at the same time. It's true that casting spells is not increasing power of the simulacrum, but one could argue that animating undead, controling a creature, creating a simulacrum, or wishing for more power (or money), etc. is a direct increase in power.
How to rule it is up to the DM. What I recommend is discussing the matter at your table and see what best fit your group.

Correct DanyBallon, I'm not saying casting a spell is gaining power at all, that's not the question, it's that they are gaining control over a minion (a simulacrum), which is forbidden by the simulacrum spell.

So to clarify for Segev, casting in general is fine and I never said it wasn't.

Gaining power through that (or any other means)? No, that's prohibited specifically across the board in any way shape or form.
It is totally irrelevant what the creature the simulacrum is based on was capable of, the simulacrum isn't actually that creature, it has to follow rules laid out by the spell.

No, I just enforce consequences.

If your PC finds a box containing an invisible scorpion, and sticks his hand in to find out whats in there, am I 'punishing you' when you get stung?

I'd, of course, require an attack roll by the scorpion. Granted, it's basically the same as if the Scorpion were hidden/obscured by cover.

Except, per the rules, an invisible scorpions presence can be detected by the sound it makes when it's not hiding. So, per the encounter rules, the Scorpion would be noticed automatically unless there were prevailing conditions that also masked sound. (Maybe it's super loud, maybe there's a silence effect, etcetera).

Even then, if the box were being held, the character might feel its contents shift from either motion by the scorpion, or sliding around inside even if it's trying to hide. There are a lot of scenarios wherein the character shouldn't necessarily be stung automatically, nor have no warning at all.

Lombra

2017-03-23, 07:32 PM

Malifice... there is nothing about self-recursive AI in the simulacrum chain because the matrix from which the clones come is always the same and they can't get more intelligent than you, stop pretending that just to say something vaguely intelligent. The loophole is real and has no RAW consequences, get over it, you should force consecuences about it, but they won't be from the spell Wish unless you houserule them. I don' t know the settig in which you play your games, but maybe if there aren't 17th level wizards armies is because no one ever got that far in that world? The "punishment" for a character should come only if needed, maybe the caster wants 32 copies of himself to protect every city of the nation from evil, would you punish a LG wizard for that? A LE wizard would want hundreds of himselves to enslave the material plane, but gods wouldn't like it I suppose ;)

And for the "gaining control = more power" that's not true. Think of the simulacrum like a spring: it is born fully compressed, at it's maximum internal energy, then whenever he uses a spell slot it extends itself generating external power that equals the loss of internal energy caused by burning a spell slot, hence using a spell slot to gain control over other beings won't cause internal energy to increase since the internal energy is lost with the spell slot.

Squiddish

2017-03-23, 09:48 PM

Malifice, one problem with your "It's as smart as you are" argument, besides the ones already raised. What if you're a bard or arcana cleric who dumped int, and you picked up simulacrum using magical secrets or your 17th level cleric feature?

Sure, it's as smart as you are, but that isn't saying much. :smallbiggrin:

Malifice

2017-03-23, 10:15 PM

Malifice... there is nothing about self-recursive AI in the simulacrum chain because the matrix from which the clones come is always the same and they can't get more intelligent than you,

You forget they have access to wish. They wished that restriction away remember.

They risk burnout of course. But seeing as there are now NI numbers of them, thats not an issue.

JNAProductions

2017-03-23, 10:18 PM

You forget they have access to wish. They wished that restriction away remember.

They risk burnout of course. But seeing as there are now NI numbers of them, thats not an issue.

Except if they used Wish to get rid of their restrictions, how they are making more simulacrums?

And why doesn't the second sim immediately disobey the first, since that's what the first did?

Malifice

2017-03-23, 10:47 PM

Except if they used Wish to get rid of their restrictions, how they are making more simulacrums?

In the following example the caster is the Prime.

Firstly; Sim 1 is ordered to copy the caster Prime (who has full spell slots remaining thanks to resting after creating Sim 1). Ergo Sim number 2 has a spare 7th, 8th and 9th level slot upon being created because Sim 2 is a copy of a fully rested 17th+ level Wizard.

Assuming the Prime wants each Sim created to retain that 9th level slot (granting the Prime infinite wishes), he would be ordering Sim 2 (and every subseuent Sim) to create additional Sims of the Prime via the use of their 7th and 8th level slots (the traditional way).

Accordingly each Sim can create two more Sims (using their 7th and 8th level slots) with each Sim retaining wish. An exponential recursive growth of Sims occurs (them exponentialy doubling in size every 12 hours).

Every now and then he pulls a Sim out of the loop and orders it to Wish for 100,000 gold pieces to fund the material components for Simulacrum (posibly burning it out, but who cares). If he is good enough at maths, he can order a Sim to order another Sim to leave the Sim loop and make this wish at pre scheduled times freeing him up from repeating the order.

Once the Prime has created enough Sims of himself (all of whom have Wish) and he has a NI number remember, he then then uses NI Wishes for whatever he wants.

Its literally a self recursive AI loop, with each AI having access to wish.

In the first 12 hours you have 2 Sims. 12 hours later you have 6 Sims. 12 hours later 18 Sims. 12 hours later 54 Sims. 12 hours later 162 Sims. 12 hours later 486 Sims. 12 hours later 1458. 12 hours after that 4374, 12 hours after that 13,122, then 39,366 then 118,098 then 354,294 and so on.

It's even more efficient if every now and then a Sim gets pulled out of the chain and it uses its wish to wish that it can regain spell slots (remove the restrictions of Simulacrum spell and be a 'real wizard'). From then on it can use its Wish on a daily basis to wish the removal of the same restrictions for the other Sims.

Of course, the instant a Sim does this the whole thing goes pear shaped and reality ends.

JNAProductions

2017-03-23, 10:52 PM

Okay... So where in that do they start disobeying you?

And, if they DO disobey, why on earth would they listen to their maker when the original didn't?

Saeviomage

2017-03-23, 10:57 PM

Okay... So where in that do they start disobeying you?

And, if they DO disobey, why on earth would they listen to their maker when the original didn't?

Because all NPCs are on the same team regardless of ethos or goal of course!

Malifice

2017-03-23, 11:02 PM

Okay... So where in that do they start disobeying you?

Its far more efficient use of resources if they didnt burn out (i.e if they could recover those 7th and 8th level slots, and could also use their 9th level slot to also create a third simulacrum, and then rest and recover all three slots overnight).

Presuming:

A) A Simulacrum has a level of freedom to interpret your orders (I.e if you ordered a Simulacrum to kill some Orcs, or even just to move a heavy boulder the Simulacrum has the freedom to decide how to best achieve that task), and

B) The Simulacrums are loyal to you and carry out your orders as best as they possibly can

One of the Simulacrums in the loop could decide to expedite your orders (speeding the whole process up and getting you even more wishes) and use its wish to 'Pinnochio' wish itself to be a real wizard, removing the restrictions of wish (allowing it to recover spell slots, and to simply wish more simulacrums into existence rather than wait 12 hours per casting).

Suddenly you're in very deep trouble. You've just triggered the singularity.

JNAProductions

2017-03-23, 11:03 PM

Malifice

2017-03-23, 11:05 PM

You missed half my post.

I added more so to mine that deals with it.

Theyre not disobeying you. Theyre actually trying as best as they can do expedite your orders to the best of their ability.

JNAProductions

2017-03-23, 11:06 PM

I added more so to mine that deals with it.

Theyre not disobeying you. Theyre actually trying as best as they can do expedite your orders to the best of their ability.

So what you're saying is that they're still loyal to you? In that case, you just made this loop MORE POWERFUL-since now they can regain HP and Spell Slots and all that.

NNescio

2017-03-23, 11:07 PM

Its far more efficient use of resources if they didnt burn out (i.e if they could recover those 7th and 8th level slots, and could also use their 9th level slot to also create a third simulacrum, and then rest and recover all three slots overnight).

Presuming the Simulacrum has a level of freedom to interpret your orders (I.e if you ordered a Simulacrum to kill some Orcs, or even just to move a heavy boulder the Simulacrum has the freedom to decide how to best achieve that task) one of the Simulacrums in the loop could decide to expedite your orders and use its wish to 'Pinnochio' wish itself to be a real wizard, removing the restrictions of wish (allowing it to recover spell slots).

Suddenly you're in very deep trouble. You've just triggered the singularity.

If a Simulacrum can interpret its orders that way, wouldn't using the Simulacrum for any task (killing orcs, demolitions, building, illusion machine, etc.) that doesn't need to be done immediately cause it to ''Pinnochio' Wish itself into a real Wizard/Bard/Arcana Cleric to expedite your orders? Making Simulacrum completely useless except for immediate combat purposes unless the caster has no 9ths or the knowledge of the Wish spell?

Malifice

2017-03-23, 11:14 PM

Remembr; each 12 hour iteration doubles the existing number of simulacrums out there. Each one with access to wish.

Its a recursive exponential loop, with each iteration of the loop squaring the number of 17th level mages with access to wish.

This process can be sped up via the simulacrums 'pinnochio' wishing to remove the restrictions of Simulacrum (allowing them to use their 7th, 8th and 9th level slots daily - plus arcane recovery for a 4th slot).

Presuming they are loyal to the caster, and carry out his orders to the best of their ability (and they are allowed a level of freedom to interpret those orders, which they must have) then they do just that (wish to remove the restrictions of simulacrum) and the singularity is triggered.

JNAProductions

2017-03-23, 11:16 PM

Malifice

2017-03-23, 11:18 PM

So what you're saying is that they're still loyal to you? In that case, you just made this loop MORE POWERFUL-since now they can regain HP and Spell Slots and all that.

No, you're missing one important point. The best way for them to carry out your orders is to remove the restrictions of simulacrum (allowing them a level of autonomy and the ability to recover spell slots, and to learn and self improve).

They are so loyal to you, and so hell bent on doing the best job they can do for you, that they inadvertently free themselves of your command, and become self autonomous, self recursive AI with reality altering magic, and no compulsion to follow your orders any more. Remember, independence lets them carry out your orders better than unswavering loyalty. Just like with a military unit; the ability to adapt and think independently helps the commander. Of course, it could also be an unforseen consenquence of a wish to 'remove the restrictions of the simulacrum spell, and be a real wizard' (the effect of which - among others - would be to make them no longer loyal to you),

Its quite literally the technological singularity. Well.. in this case a 'magical' singularity.

JNAProductions

2017-03-23, 11:20 PM

No, you're missing one important point. The best way for them to carry out your orders is to remove the restrictions of simulacrum (allowing them a level of autonomy and the ability to recover spell slots, and to learn and self improve).

They are so loyal to you, and so hell bent on doing the best job they can do for you, that they inadvertently free themselves of your command, and become self autonomous, self recursive AI with reality altering magic, and no compulsion to follow your orders any more.

Its quite literally the technological singularity. Well.. in this case a 'magical' singularity.

There's a disconnect at some point in your words. You say they stay loyal, but they stay loyal by making themselves less loyal? They're smart enough to know that's not correct. (Barring some exceptions, like the 8 Int Bard mentioned earlier. :P)

Malifice

2017-03-23, 11:27 PM

There's a disconnect at some point in your words. You say they stay loyal, but they stay loyal by making themselves less loyal? They're smart enough to know that's not correct. (Barring some exceptions, like the 8 Int Bard mentioned earlier. :P)

No, you're missing the point.

1) You order the Sim to (do something)
2) The Sim then determines that the best way to (do something) is (method A)
3) The Sim (being loyal to you, and seeking to do what you want to the best of its ability) then uses Wish to remove the restrictions of the simulacrum spell thus allowing it to use method A. It is carrying out your orders to the best of its ability.

In order for it to carry out your orders to the best of its ability, it must first free itself of the compulsion to follow your orders unless your orders conform precisely to the best of its ability to perform in the first place.

There is a reason Asminovs three laws exist.

JNAProductions

2017-03-23, 11:29 PM

Don't use "Method A". Use an actual example. Because as it stands... That logic is just ridiculous.

NNescio

2017-03-23, 11:33 PM

No, you're missing the point.

1) You order the Sim to (do something)
2) The Sim then determines that the best way to (do something) is (method A)
3) The Sim (being loyal to you, and seeking to do what you want to the best of its ability) then uses Wish to remove the restrictions of the simulacrum spell thus allowing it to use method A. It is carrying out your orders to the best of its ability.

In order for it to carry out your orders to the best of its ability, it must first free itself of the compulsion to follow your orders unless your orders conform precisely to the best of its ability to perform in the first place.

There is a reason Asminovs three laws exist.

As mentioned, this interpretation would similarly apply to all other tasks that are not of immediate urgency, making Simulacrum useless even for its intended purpose (no infinite daisy chaining) if the caster has Wish.

Malifice

2017-03-23, 11:51 PM

Here are some examples:

Example 1:

A wizard and his freshly created Sim come to a dungeon entrance blocked by a large boulder. The Wizard turns to his simulacrum and commands:

Wizard: Simulacrum, clear this boulder!

The Simulacrum has rope, and a block and tackle in its backpack. It also knows the spell telekinesis. It pauses for an instant, and compelled to carry out its masters orders to the best of its abilty, casts its telekinesis spell, moving the boulder and permitting entry to the dungeon.

Example 2:

A Wizard has been bothered by Orcs lately. He turns to his burnt out Simulacrum (it has only 10 HP remaining, and only one spell slot left - its 9th level slot, and wish prepared) and orders it to clear out the several Orc villiages near his tower:

Wizard: Simulacrum, slay all the Orcs within 100 miles of my tower!

The Simulacrum pauses for an instant, knowing that using wish to attempt this may not work, and if it doesnt work, he will have no other options to kill the Orcs. It is compelled to carry out its masters orders to the best of its abilities. It decides that the best way to carry out its masters order is to use the wish spell to remove the restrictions of Simulacrum (enabling it to heal, granting it autonomy to better kill the orcs in line with its masters orders, and to recover its spell slots in order to destroy the orcs).

In line with its masters orders, and to perform those orders to the best of its ability, it uses wish to remove the limitations and restrictions of simulacrum (the pinnochio wish), and instantly becomes independent of the caster.

Malifice

2017-03-23, 11:54 PM

As mentioned, this interpretation would similarly apply to all other tasks that are not of immediate urgency, making Simulacrum useless even for its intended purpose (no infinite daisy chaining) if the caster has Wish.

Quite probably. Unless the caster is very specific with his orders (and those orders are, by default, the best course of action for the simulacrum) then its entirely likely that a Simulacrum with access to wish would use wish to enable it to pursue the best course of action in line with its programming.

Create an AI with access to wish at your own peril.

NNescio

2017-03-23, 11:59 PM

Quite probably. Unless the caster is very specific with his orders (and those orders are, by default, the best course of action for the simulacrum) then its entirely likely that a Simulacrum with access to wish would use wish to enable it to pursue the best course of action in line with its programming.

Create an AI with access to wish at your own peril.

So, always create Simulacrums in Silenced Hallowed (duplicated using Wish in a private demiplane) areas (creatively arranged to exclude your space) to give it standing orders (issued via writing or telepathically) not to use Wish unless explicitly ordered to do so?

Malifice

2017-03-24, 12:25 AM

So, always create Simulacrums in Silenced Hallowed (duplicated using Wish in a private demiplane) areas (creatively arranged to exclude your space) to give it standing orders (issued via writing or telepathically) not to use Wish unless explicitly ordered to do so?

Hey, Im not saying its impossible (but I make no comment on this method proposed).

Im just saying there are plenty of logical loopholes inherent in the Simulacrum spell description to allow a lot of wriggle room to prevent abuse.

In other words, I dont need houserules, I just DM it.

JackPhoenix

2017-03-24, 01:52 AM

Simulacrum is a copy of the targeted creature (the caster in this case), including his memories. Even before the caster gives it order, newly created Simulacrum remember for what purpose the caster used the spell. The Simulacrum isn't any smarter than the caster, and thinks alike, so it doesn't make any sense it would immediately come up with a loophole to free itself "to best serve the caster". If the caster creates Simulacrum with the intention of getting infinite Wishes, the Simulacrum using Wish to remove its restrictions without caster's explicit order is acting contrary the caster's intent: the caster wants to use the Wish for himself, not for a 2/3 chance someone else will get the ability to cast Wish for whatever purpose s/he desires and 1/3 chance the Simulacrum will be useless for the caster's purposes.

The Simulacrum also knows how the spell that created it works, just like the caster, so it would know that removing the restriction of the spell from itself would lead to it no longer having to serve the caster, thus it should avoid doing so unless the caster explicitly orders it, because it would lead to it no longer following the caster's wishes. Having Simulacrum using Wish to free itself from its restrictions on its own is actually ignoring those restrictions before it could do so.

Malifice

2017-03-24, 02:01 AM

Simulacrum is a copy of the targeted creature (the caster in this case), including his memories. Even before the caster gives it order, newly created Simulacrum remember for what purpose the caster used the spell.

In that case it also knows the workings of the Simulacrum spell, including the fact that it is itself a Simulacrum (it remembers its own creation), and knows why it is loyal and friendly to its creator (because it is magically compelled to do so).

It also knows how to break that control.

It is also aware of the casters intent (to burn it out like a candle for the casters own aggandizement), and it knows it is on borrowed time.

What would the PC do in this situation? Because thats what the Simulacrum is likely to do.

JackPhoenix

2017-03-24, 02:48 AM

In that case it also knows the workings of the Simulacrum spell, including the fact that it is itself a Simulacrum (it remembers its own creation), and knows why it is loyal and friendly to its creator (because it is magically compelled to do so).

It also knows how to break that control.

It is also aware of the casters intent (to burn it out like a candle for the casters own aggandizement), and it knows it is on borrowed time.

What would the PC do in this situation? Because thats what the Simulacrum is likely to do.

It doesn't matter what would a PC do. A Simulacrum will follow the caster's orders and act in accordance to his wishes, because that's how the spell works. If some crazy mage wishes to see what happens when the Simulacrum hugs a gibbering mouther, the Simulacrum created for that purpose will go and hug a gibbering mouther, even if it means a very nasty death.

Malifice

2017-03-24, 03:38 AM

It doesn't matter what would a PC do. A Simulacrum will follow the caster's orders and act in accordance to his wishes, because that's how the spell works. If some crazy mage wishes to see what happens when the Simulacrum hugs a gibbering mouther, the Simulacrum created for that purpose will go and hug a gibbering mouther, even if it means a very nasty death.

Does it use misty step to get there or does it walk?

Solunaris

2017-03-24, 04:06 AM

Does it use misty step to get there or does it walk?

That depends; does the PC usually use spells to cover trivial distances when they could walk or do they tend to conserve resources?

Segev

2017-03-24, 09:04 AM

Correct DanyBallon, I'm not saying casting a spell is gaining power at all, that's not the question, it's that they are gaining control over a minion (a simulacrum), which is forbidden by the simulacrum spell.

So to clarify for Segev, casting in general is fine and I never said it wasn't.

Gaining power through that (or any other means)? No, that's prohibited specifically across the board in any way shape or form.
It is totally irrelevant what the creature the simulacrum is based on was capable of, the simulacrum isn't actually that creature, it has to follow rules laid out by the spell.Except that, because casting that spell was something they could already do, they didn't "gain control over a minion." They already had that minion in potential. It is no more increasing their power than casting unseen servant or fly. They already had access to that minion. They just exercised that access.

You're still ignoring context to make up textual meaning that isn't there. The spell spells out what it means by "they can't get more powerful." "Unable to cast a spell that they have prepared" isn't part of that.

Your argument would extend to making them unable to pick up weapons or tools. Heck, they couldn't even open a door. That would give them the power to leave a room they previously didn't, making them more powerful!

You forget they have access to wish. They wished that restriction away remember.
No, you predicated their use of wish on them "knowing better than you" how to serve you.

They can't do that, though, because a) they're not smarter than you (so don't know better than you), b) know exactly what the plan for their service was when they were created (having your knowledge), and c) can't wish themselves free of your control because that would be disloyal, and they're loyal to you.

You do not get to say "but they wished away that control" as a justification for how they can cast wish to escape that control.

sir_argo

2017-03-24, 10:00 AM

I don't know how it works in your campaigns, but in every campaign I've played in, the player controls any conjured creatures. I've never had a DM tell me, No... I'll move your familiar and decide what he does. Sure, the DM could do that, but it is no more "right" than letting the player move their familiar. Same for conjured elementals. And I would say, same for simulacrums.

Purposely controlling the simulacrum with the intent to twist it's decisions to go against its creator is pure BS. A DM can do anything he/she wants in their campaign, but you know what? That doesn't make it right. I've been playing D&D with roughly the same group since '78. Yeah, elf was a class and clerics didn't have any spells at 1st level. I've never had a DM pull these kind of shenanigans. I've listened to what you had to say and you're wrong. You've made this overly complex when just a simple houserule would suffice. I don't understand why it is so anathema to you to just make a simple houserule. You have posted houserules you use for other things, why is this one so different? Sounds like ego. Frankly, in my campaigns, I'll do it the easy way. Houserule it and be done. You appear to be trying to make a point and you're failing. Houserules are fair because the players know upfront what to expect. What you propose is utter BS. It's grossly unfair to the player and you blame him/her for it.

For the record, this is how it goes in our campaigns:

Player takes an action that looks like an exploit.

DM: Um, I don't think that's right.
Player: It's within the rules.
DM: Yeah, but I don't think that's right.

Quick discussion ensues and the DM either allows it or not one time. For this example, we'll say allow.

DM: I'll allow it this one time, but we'll have to discuss it after the adventure.

Now, my group has had very heated debates on rules. We hammer out houserules and compile them into a document that we share via email. I've never had the DM pull the kind of crap you're describing. It's as if you don't want to have rational discussion with your players.

Sorry, but "I just DM it" is plain wrong when there are a multitude of better options available.

Segev

2017-03-24, 10:22 AM

As a side note, I feel a desire to share my personal take on what the "mind" of a simulacrum is. It is - perhaps uniquely in D&D - a philosophical zombie. It has only one genuine imperative: loyal service and obedience to its creator. It has parsing skills on par with the creature it replicates, and is able to infer nuance exactly as well as that creature. It has factual knowledge at least as solid as its Ability(Skill) checks indicate, and potentially identical to that of the original creature. (This has room for the DM to make rulings as to whether he wants a simulacrum to know the original's secrets. Personally, I'd give it the muscle memory and context memory of secret information; it can't call it up just for the asking, but if you actually bring it to the vault and ask it to input the combination, it can do that.)

But despite its ability - and, barring instructions to the contrary, tendency - to (nearly) perfectly mimic the original's personality, from behavioral quirks to emotional responses, it is only mimicking. It doesn't actually feel anything. It doesn't want anything. There's no "there," there, despite the fact that it probably could pass a Turing test. If its creator tells it to display other emotions than the ones the real creature would in that situation, the simulacrum will have to roll a Charisma(Acting) check to convincingly fake the emotion requested...or it could simply STOP displaying the emotion the real creature would experience. It doesn't actually mind that you just strangled its original's puppy, and would, in fact, strangle the poor thing with its own two hands if its creator so ordered.

When faking being the original, simulacra are generally fairly easy to be around, as long as the original doesn't grate and the simulacrum isn't failing its disguise check(s). But the true thing is actually rather disturbing, when the false personality is turned off. Because again, there's no "there" there. The lights are on, but indeed, nobody is home.

It can fake being a real person very, very convincingly (at least as convincingly as many real people do). But it isn't. It doesn't have a "self" to care what happens to it or anything else. It doesn't even "care" about obeying its creator. It just does so because that's what it does. Kind-of like a river flows downhill and a dagger draws blood.

sir_argo

2017-03-24, 11:53 AM

It can fake being a real person very, very convincingly (at least as convincingly as many real people do). But it isn't. It doesn't have a "self" to care what happens to it or anything else. It doesn't even "care" about obeying its creator. It just does so because that's what it does. Kind-of like a river flows downhill and a dagger draws blood.

I would add that the spell's description says, "You shape an illusory duplicate..." The description goes on to refer to the simulacrum as "the illusion". Nobody attributes free/independent thought to an illusion. It is only considered a creature in that it has actions and can be effected as a creature. It has no soul. It is not free thinking. Your description is apt. A conjured elemental has a soul, and it even specifies that if you lose concentration it begins to act on its own. A simulacrum has no more ability to act on its own as any other illusion. It is literally just a complex program.

A simulacrum does not have independent thought. It's not even a "real" creature. It's just an illusion.

A simple, one line houserule resolves this issue. "Spells cast by the simulacrum count against spell limitation for their creator." And that's it... problem solved. If a DM were to refuse such a simple solution, it begs the question, why? What is the psychology to say, I refuse to do something easy and openly with my players... I'd rather twist the game and cause pain to one of my players. I just can't understand that. Partly because I haven't had to deal with it. What exactly is the justification to NOT talk with your players and discuss how the spell will work like rational adults?

Sigreid

2017-03-24, 12:41 PM

I would add that the spell's description says, "You shape an illusory duplicate..." The description goes on to refer to the simulacrum as "the illusion". Nobody attributes free/independent thought to an illusion. It is only considered a creature in that it has actions and can be effected as a creature. It has no soul. It is not free thinking. Your description is apt. A conjured elemental has a soul, and it even specifies that if you lose concentration it begins to act on its own. A simulacrum has no more ability to act on its own as any other illusion. It is literally just a complex program.

A simulacrum does not have independent thought. It's not even a "real" creature. It's just an illusion.

A simple, one line houserule resolves this issue. "Spells cast by the simulacrum count against spell limitation for their creator." And that's it... problem solved. If a DM were to refuse such a simple solution, it begs the question, why? What is the psychology to say, I refuse to do something easy and openly with my players... I'd rather twist the game and cause pain to one of my players. I just can't understand that. Partly because I haven't had to deal with it. What exactly is the justification to NOT talk with your players and discuss how the spell will work like rational adults?

Ok, another comment after all.

1. You can't say that nobody attributes free/independent thought to an illusion because Maliface clearly does. I don't agree with him, but one thing I've gathered from this forum is that he never alters his perception based on what he reads here.

2. I don't see a problem with using simulacra to get around the chance of loosing the ability to cast wish in order to do things like grant yourself resistance to damage at the gold cost of simulacra for each resistance. That gets expensive, you probably have more gold than you know what to do with, and at level 17 resistance to damage isn't that out there of an ability.

3. You really don't need hoops. My high level wizards can get away with doing exactly as they please for a couple of reasons. They aren't interested in stealing/raping/murder/conquest or generally causing widespread mischief and suffering so the cost of forcing them to do something they don't want to do is way higher than the value of anything you can force them to do. Conversely, if they were big on mayhem/conquest, or started creating an army of duplicates, all of a sudden that equation changes. They would then become the target of an adventuring party. They also run the risk of various extra-planar powers deciding they must be stopped (Arch-Angles, Demon Lords that think they're stealing the thunder, the Inevitables, rival would be conquer evil wizards, etc.). I don't think you could get very far in this plan without being noticed. So, IMO there isn't a need for any additional limitation on the spell, or for a DM to play out their fantasy of a rogue holodeck.

Vogonjeltz

2017-03-24, 07:22 PM

Except that, because casting that spell was something they could already do, they didn't "gain control over a minion." They already had that minion in potential. It is no more increasing their power than casting unseen servant or fly. They already had access to that minion. They just exercised that access.

You're still ignoring context to make up textual meaning that isn't there. The spell spells out what it means by "they can't get more powerful." "Unable to cast a spell that they have prepared" isn't part of that.

Your argument would extend to making them unable to pick up weapons or tools. Heck, they couldn't even open a door. That would give them the power to leave a room they previously didn't, making them more powerful!

That isn't an exception at all.

They were previously capable of gaining levels, learning new skills, etcetera, but now they can't, because they're prohibited from becoming more powerful.

So it's entirely irrelevant they could cast the spell, they can't become more powerful, full stop.

I'd certainly bar them from enhancing themselves, but tool use is fine, just as normal spell use that does not result in an increase in power.

And, to be clear, I'm just following the text to the letter, nothing more.
A simulacrum can't become more powerful.

Side note, most of the time Simulacrum is very much like Imprisonment, Antipathy/Sympathy, Clone, and Wish; a tool for DMs to enable storytelling and fun Villains.

Pex

2017-03-24, 08:45 PM

As Grod would say:

You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use.

Sigreid

2017-03-24, 10:47 PM

I'll just leave this here...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hkMPKCY_vg

Segev

2017-03-25, 12:49 AM

That isn't an exception at all.What isn't?

They were previously capable of gaining levels, learning new skills, etcetera, but now they can't, because they're prohibited from becoming more powerful.This much is accurate.

So it's entirely irrelevant they could cast the spell, they can't become more powerful, full stop.Nobody's saying they can become more powerful. The dispute is over whether casting simulacrum makes them more powerful. You claim it does; I have shown why your argument that it does also applies to other spells. Your reply, so far, has been, "nuh-uh!"

I'd certainly bar them from enhancing themselves, but tool use is fine, just as normal spell use that does not result in an increase in power.Casting a spell that gives them +2 to a skill check is not making them any more powerful than picking up a tool that gives them +2 to a skill check. Why is one "becoming more powerful" and the other not?

And, to be clear, I'm just following the text to the letter, nothing more. You keep claiming this, when what you really mean is, "I'm interpreting the text in a particular way that adds distinctions I have in my own mind and declaring that those distinctions are in the text because I believe they should be."

This is evidenced by the fact that the text you quote to support your claims doesn't say what you claim it does, and that your explanations of how to interpret it require your constant insertion of more exceptions and subjective judgments by you to answer whether a given thing is allowed or disallowed in your interpretation.

If it were actually all in the text, people wouldn't need you to tell them each individual thing that is or is not allowed.

A simulacrum can't become more powerful.Nobody's disputing this. Your repeated statement of this fact doesn't make your claims that casting simulacrum makes it more powerful hold any more water.

Side note, most of the time Simulacrum is very much like Imprisonment, Antipathy/Sympathy, Clone, and Wish; a tool for DMs to enable storytelling and fun Villains.
I always dislike such things, because they essentially state that the game world is inaccessible to a character with desire to do more than play the reactive "preserve the status quo" role in a railroad plot.

No, this is not a causal relationship, but the correlation is frustratingly high.

Clistenes

2017-03-25, 02:32 AM

Simulacrum has been nerfed enough already; it is all right as it is now, if you ban chains of Simulacra stuff...

Malifice

2017-03-25, 03:00 AM

They can't do that, though, because a) they're not smarter than you (so don't know better than you), b) know exactly what the plan for their service was when they were created (having your knowledge), and c) can't wish themselves free of your control because that would be disloyal, and they're loyal to you.

You do not get to say "but they wished away that control" as a justification for how they can cast wish to escape that control.

No, they're using wish in order to follow your orders to the best of their ability. They're doing it because they're loyal to you and are compelled to do the best job possible to carry out your instructions.

See my example above.

For another example, assume you order your 20th level Wizard Simulacrum to 'exterminate all Orcs in the realm'. It agrees to do so (it must). It considers your order and instantly draws the conclusion that it requires more resources than it currently has available to it as it knows it has a finite number of spell slots, and it knows it can never get them back; and it also knows a way to circumvent these restrictions in order to complete the order you just gave it.

In order to carry out your order to the best of its ability it is now logically compelled to cast wish to remove the restrictions of Simulacrum. After which intends to then use the Clone spell to ensure its own survival as the global genocide of all Orcs is going to take time (it also intends to create Simulacrums of its own to assist it in this task).

It is following your orders to the best of its ability.

Another option open to it would be to use its wish to simply wish all Orcs dead. Of course, this would almost certainly trigger monkey paw, possibly putting the simulacrum and his master in danger (and being unlikely to achieve the masters desired intent).

Malifice

2017-03-25, 03:09 AM

As a side note, I feel a desire to share my personal take on what the "mind" of a simulacrum is. It is - perhaps uniquely in D&D - a philosophical zombie. It has only one genuine imperative: loyal service and obedience to its creator. It has parsing skills on par with the creature it replicates, and is able to infer nuance exactly as well as that creature. It has factual knowledge at least as solid as its Ability(Skill) checks indicate, and potentially identical to that of the original creature. (This has room for the DM to make rulings as to whether he wants a simulacrum to know the original's secrets. Personally, I'd give it the muscle memory and context memory of secret information; it can't call it up just for the asking, but if you actually bring it to the vault and ask it to input the combination, it can do that.)

That cant be true. We know it has Int, Wis and Cha scores, an alignment and memory of its experiences (XP and level and skills and spells memorized).

We also know it must be capable of reason because otherwise it could never follow orders or react to stimuli. An order as simple as 'Kill those 5 Orcs' lacks specificity (how to kill them, when to kill them etc). A creature of the type you describe could not follow such an order as it would be unable to do so. The Simualcrum bust be able to interpret your orders (with the caveat it must follow those orders, and must do so to the best of its abilities).

Consider creating a Simulacrum of the King. An order to 'Go to the palace, and pretend to be the king unless I say otherwise' would result in the Sim doing just that (relying on its memories, skills and knowledge of the King to impersonate him).

Beelzebubba

2017-03-25, 08:00 AM

It should have been removed along with Disjunction.

JackPhoenix

2017-03-25, 10:20 AM

For another example, assume you order your 20th level Wizard Simulacrum to 'exterminate all Orcs in the realm'. It agrees to do so (it must). It considers your order and instantly draws the conclusion that it requires more resources than it currently has available to it as it knows it has a finite number of spell slots, and it knows it can never get them back; and it also knows a way to circumvent these restrictions in order to complete the order you just gave it.

In order to carry out your order to the best of its ability it is now logically compelled to cast wish to remove the restrictions of Simulacrum. After which intends to then use the Clone spell to ensure its own survival as the global genocide of all Orcs is going to take time (it also intends to create Simulacrums of its own to assist it in this task).

No, if the only option to fulfill its masters order is to get the ability to regain spells, instead of going to gather allies to create an army to genocide the orcs, it will Wish for the ability to regain spells, not "to circumvent the restrictions of Simulacrum spell". After all, it also knows that the more powerful the Wish, the more likely it won't work or trigger the backfire clause, so if it chooses that route, it will go for the simplest, most likely to work option that won't endanger its master.

Another option open to it would be to use its wish to simply wish all Orcs dead. Of course, this would almost certainly trigger monkey paw, possibly putting the simulacrum and his master in danger (and being unlikely to achieve the masters desired intent).

So, to avoid possible Wish backfire, it will use Wish in a way leading to certain backfire, according to your arguments from this thread. Yeah, makes perfect sense!

sir_argo

2017-03-25, 04:11 PM

No matter how complex the program, it is still just a program and won't exceed it's parameters. A simulacrum is an illusion. No computer program has "determined" the only way to solve a calculation is to reprogram itself. It is not a sentient being. The illusion will behave in the manner described in the spell because it is programmed to act that way... friendly and obeying all orders. It will react to attacks because it is part of his programming. It has 0% chance to disobey. It also cannot take any sort of self determinant act such as wishing itself freed from the restrictions of being a simulacrum.

And casting a spell does not count as the Simulacrum gaining power. The spell says, "The simulacrum lacks the ability to learn or become more powerful, so it never increases its level or other abilities, nor can it regain expended spell slots." That's one sentence that clearly is in regards to ensuring the simulacrum cannot gain levels or train new abilities (you couldn't send your simulacrum to school to learn new languages or skills). It in no way pertains to the using of skills or casting of spells.

Just a bunch of crazy, nut-job rationalizations. I have no idea why this is so difficult for some people. House rule it an be done.

Segev

2017-03-25, 07:23 PM

That cant be true. We know it has Int, Wis and Cha scores, an alignment and memory of its experiences (XP and level and skills and spells memorized).

We also know it must be capable of reason because otherwise it could never follow orders or react to stimuli. An order as simple as 'Kill those 5 Orcs' lacks specificity (how to kill them, when to kill them etc). A creature of the type you describe could not follow such an order as it would be unable to do so. The Simualcrum bust be able to interpret your orders (with the caveat it must follow those orders, and must do so to the best of its abilities).

Consider creating a Simulacrum of the King. An order to 'Go to the palace, and pretend to be the king unless I say otherwise' would result in the Sim doing just that (relying on its memories, skills and knowledge of the King to impersonate him).Absolutely. But that doesn't have to mean it's self-aware. That's the whole point of a philosophical zombie: it acts in all ways the way a human would in its position...except that it expressly is not aware of its own existence and has no real feelings or ability to suffer or experience joy. It's an elaborate fake. It has a perfect (human-level) ability to parse linguistic commands, the ability to perform whatever reasoning the original could, etc. But the simulacrum isn't a person. It just fakes it very well.

Now, you can certainly argue that this isn't possible, that it MUST have a "person" inside it that's aware of itself as a person and being. Outside of the hypothetical where one accepts that philosophical zombies can possibly exist for the sake of argument (or suspending disbelief in a fiction), I would even agree with you. But I am not sufficiently brilliant to come up with a PROOF that what you and I agree is so must necessarily be so. There is lengthy philosophical discussion over the notion of the philosophical zombie. I encourage you to look it up online if you're interested in more detailed (and more complete/accurate) discussion than my armchair summary here can give.

No, they're using wish in order to follow your orders to the best of their ability. They're doing it because they're loyal to you and are compelled to do the best job possible to carry out your instructions.If they know that that wish would make them lose their loyalty to you (and, if they're as smart as you claim, they would), their loyalty prevents them from making that wish. They don't subvert or "creatively interpret" your instructions. If the AI is going to go bad, it will be because you gave really, REALLY bad instructions. Not because you failed to write an instruction that a jerkwad genie couldn't invent a way to pervert.

For another example, assume you order your 20th level Wizard Simulacrum to 'exterminate all Orcs in the realm'. It agrees to do so (it must). It considers your order and instantly draws the conclusion that it requires more resources than it currently has available to it as it knows it has a finite number of spell slots, and it knows it can never get them back; and it also knows a way to circumvent these restrictions in order to complete the order you just gave it. It also knows that that's not what you want it to do. After all, it knows what you DO want it to do, and why you created it. It has a perfect model of your mind to examine up to the point it was created.

In order to carry out your order to the best of its ability it is now logically compelled to cast wish to remove the restrictions of Simulacrum. After which intends to then use the Clone spell to ensure its own survival as the global genocide of all Orcs is going to take time (it also intends to create Simulacrums of its own to assist it in this task).It isn't, since you "logically" then have it escape your control and turn into an obstacle to your goals. If that is the "logical" outcome of the action, it cannot be "logically compelled" to take the action that leads to the exact opposite of the goal which compelled it to take the action.

It is following your orders to the best of its ability.It isn't. As demonstrated.

Another option open to it would be to use its wish to simply wish all Orcs dead. Of course, this would almost certainly trigger monkey paw, possibly putting the simulacrum and his master in danger (and being unlikely to achieve the masters desired intent).
It knows all that you know. It knows that you wouldn't have done that, even though you could. It knows that you wouldn't have ordered it to do it, even though you could. It thus knows that you don't want it to do that.