AL deals with Simulacrum / Wish cheese

[Byke]

http://media.wizards.com/2017/dnd/downloads/DDAL_FAQv6-1.pdf

The relevant quotes:

No Copies of a Copy.
Simulacrums can’t cast simulacrum, or any spell that duplicates its effects. (p. 7)

You Are You; and So Is He.
If a simulacrum you have created casts wish, both you and your simulacrum suffer the stress associated with casting the spell — including the risk of being forever unable to cast wish again. The inability to cast wish extends to any simulacrum you create in the future. (p. 8)

[Sigreid]

I can see why they would do this with AL since they are hoping thousands of people, most of whom have no l9ng term relationship with each other will play in the same environment. I don't find it particularly relevant to a private table though.

[Rogerdodger557]

This has been in effect for 5 months. Also, why would a home game DM allow the same cheese?

[Willie the Duck]

Lots of people 'play using AL rules.'

Yes that's in quotes. No, I don't believe anyone is nearly as consistent as they proclaim except maybe for stuff like build your character with core plus one splat. But for a number of people, this is as good as official errata.


This has been in effect for 5 months. Also, why would a home game DM allow the same cheese?


They wouldn't. No one 'in the real world' actually needs this issue resolved. It is only talking heads on forums who proclaim 'broken'ness who need this.

[Byke]

This has been in effect for 5 months. Also, why would a home game DM allow the same cheese?

My bad I just saw it so thought it was recent.

[Rogerdodger557]

My bad I just saw it so thought it was recent.

That's okay. Be sure to check the title page, it usually has an "effective by" date on it.

[SharkForce]

They wouldn't. No one 'in the real world' actually needs this issue resolved. It is only talking heads on forums who proclaim 'broken'ness who need this.

well, it is broken, and needs fixing... it's just a very simple and obvious fix, so not really a problem. well, for most people it isn't really a problem. for some people, apparently the fix is changing the simulacrum spell after they've chosen the spell and used it to have the simulacrum try to murder the original and take over their life. personally, the AL fix seems better to me, so i rather welcome an official acknowledgement of this problem (in much the same way that i welcome the semi-official acknowledgement that conjuring a bunch of pixies is broken as hell by the fact that AL doesn't allow pixies to be summoned, period. i'd welcome it more if they'd just fix their damned CR in the first place though).

but yeah, problems like this aren't really the big ones. the big ones are the ones that initially don't look like a problem.

[sightlessrealit]

This has been in effect for 5 months. Also, why would a home game DM allow the same cheese?

Cause it's fun.

[Willie the Duck]

well, it is broken, and needs fixing... it's just a very simple and obvious fix, so not really a problem.

Okay, yeah. They should have eventually addressed it I suppose. My general feeling as this edition rolled out was just something like, "oh look, the infinite wish loop for this edition is extra obvious."



but yeah, problems like this aren't really the big ones. the big ones are the ones that initially don't look like a problem.

Yep. 'Wish' I'd said it that way.

[Sigreid]

I've been playing a long time and never once seen it be a problem. None of the people I've played with have ever set the goal of wrecking the game for everyone.

[Naanomi]

Can current published AL adventures get you to 17th level?

[Rogerdodger557]

Can current published AL adventures get you to 17th level?

The only campaign that can do so is Tyranny of Dragons(HotDQ+RoT), with maybe some other module/epics in between. Beyond that, there are modules for all levels, and the epics.

Edit: Fixed a word

[Willie the Duck]

The only campaign that can do so is Tranny of Dragons(HotDQ+RoT), with maybe some other module/epics in between. Beyond that, there are modules for all levels, and the epics.

What kind of differential comes standard with a Dragon Tranny?

[jas61292]

While straight up saying no to simulacrum casing simulacrum is probably a good idea, the basic concept of "you are you, and so is he" is a great one that would cover it without the more arbitrary sounding restriction. After all, if you are you and so is he, then if he cast simulacrum, he would vanish because you (and thus you and he combined) can only ever have one.

[Rogerdodger557]

What kind of differential comes standard with a Dragon Tranny?

Well ****.

[SharkForce]

While straight up saying no to simulacrum casing simulacrum is probably a good idea, the basic concept of "you are you, and so is he" is a great one that would cover it without the more arbitrary sounding restriction. After all, if you are you and so is he, then if he cast simulacrum, he would vanish because you (and thus you and he combined) can only ever have one.

sure.

and then you create a simulacrum of the BBEG, have it use a wish outside of duplicating a spell. now you get a cool ability (possibly temporary), and the BBEG just got kicked in the nuts super hard. and possibly will never be able to use wish again.

so yeah, "a simulacrum is the same person as the original" is not a great ruling. it kinda solves some problems, but it also creates others.

[Naanomi]

What AL NPC has wish and simulacrum prepared in an encounter?

[sir_argo]

sure.

and then you create a simulacrum of the BBEG, have it use a wish outside of duplicating a spell. now you get a cool ability (possibly temporary), and the BBEG just got kicked in the nuts super hard. and possibly will never be able to use wish again.

so yeah, "a simulacrum is the same person as the original" is not a great ruling. it kinda solves some problems, but it also creates others.


Your quote isn't what they said at all. The actual quote is, "If a simulacrum you have created casts wish, both you and your simulacrum suffer the stress associated with casting the spell-including the risk of being forever unable to cast wish again."

Pay attention to when it says, "you and your simulacrum." It does not say, "the original spell's target and your simulacrum."

In other words, if you cast simulacrum of another wizard and the simulacrum casts Wish. YOU, not the other wizard, will have any adverse effects.

[SharkForce]

What AL NPC has wish and simulacrum prepared in an encounter?

future-proofing, man. future-proofing.

(also, they only need wish. you wish for a simulacrum of them, which is duplicating a spell, then the simulacrum (which didn't have to expend it's own spell slot) wishes to give your party permanent resistance to the type of damage their current minions deal, for the sake of argument... now they're down to str 3 for several days (which may be enough that they can no longer move without removing some of their gear), take damage every time they cast a spell, and there's a 33 percent chance you just removed their ability to ever cast wish again).

edit:


Your quote isn't what they said at all. The actual quote is, "If a simulacrum you have created casts wish, both you and your simulacrum suffer the stress associated with casting the spell-including the risk of being forever unable to cast wish again."

Pay attention to when it says, "you and your simulacrum." It does not say, "the original spell's target and your simulacrum."

In other words, if you cast simulacrum of another wizard and the simulacrum casts Wish. YOU, not the other wizard, will have any adverse effects.

go back to the post you quoted of mine. then read what the post *I* quoted says. i wasn't responding to the original post, or to the way AL has dealt with wish/simulacrum cheese. i was responding to the post i quoted. which is why i quoted that post... to emphasize that i was responding to that statement, and not some other random arbitrary statement that a random reader might choose to assume i'm responding to.

[Zalabim]

go back to the post you quoted of mine. then read what the post *I* quoted says. i wasn't responding to the original post, or to the way AL has dealt with wish/simulacrum cheese. i was responding to the post i quoted. which is why i quoted that post... to emphasize that i was responding to that statement, and not some other random arbitrary statement that a random reader might choose to assume i'm responding to.

You misunderstood. It's okay. Now you know.

Alternatively, the post you quoted was quoting the way AL deals with simulacrum abuse, so it's natural to assume a response to that is also about the way AL deals with simulacrum abuse, specifically the "you are you; and so is he," part.

[SharkForce]

You misunderstood. It's okay. Now you know.

Alternatively, the post you quoted was quoting the way AL deals with simulacrum abuse, so it's natural to assume a response to that is also about the way AL deals with simulacrum abuse, specifically the "you are you; and so is he," part.

am i being trolled or something? ok, since you CLEARLY can't be bothered to actually follow instructions, i will now attempt posting the thing i was responding to in this post. for no good reason, i mean, frankly, i *shouldn't* need to do this, it's already in print above, all you have to do is *actually* scroll up and read like i said to do in the post you quoted before telling me i have no idea what i'm doing , but here:


While straight up saying no to simulacrum casing simulacrum is probably a good idea, the basic concept of "you are you, and so is he" is a great one that would cover it without the more arbitrary sounding restriction. After all, if you are you and so is he, then if he cast simulacrum, he would vanish because you (and thus you and he combined) can only ever have one.

so, let's parse that: this person just proposed that instead of the AL solution (which is that a simulacrum cannot cast simulacrum, and the consequences of wish spells used by a simulacrum (if any) fall on the creator of the simulacrum as well as the simulacrum), a simulacrum of you is the same person as you.

and then i pointed out how that ruling could be abused. specifically, that someone could then make a simulacrum of someone else (such as, for example, the BBEG) using a wish spell, and then if that BBEG had the wish spell prepared, the simulacrum could be ordered to cast the spell dangerously and now the BBEG just ate the full consequences, because the BBEG and his/her simulacrum count as the same person.

and now i have been told *twice* that i don't understand the AL ruling. i understand the damn ruling. what you don't seem to understand is the concept of quoting a post to address that post specifically rather than something else. i quoted the bloody thing to make it clear what i was responding to. and then i *explained* that concept once already. this isn't rocket science. i wasn't responding to the original post, i was responding to the post that i quoted to show what i was responding to.

[Zalabim]

Then let me make this extra clear: The person you quoted:


While straight up saying no to simulacrum casing simulacrum is probably a good idea, the basic concept of "you are you, and so is he" is a great one that would cover it without the more arbitrary sounding restriction. After all, if you are you and so is he, then if he cast simulacrum, he would vanish because you (and thus you and he combined) can only ever have one.
Very clearly referenced this part of the OP here:


You Are You; and So Is He.
If a simulacrum you have created casts wish, both you and your simulacrum suffer the stress associated with casting the spell — including the risk of being forever unable to cast wish again. The inability to cast wish extends to any simulacrum you create in the future. (p. 8)
So when you point out an abuse like this:

sure.

and then you create a simulacrum of the BBEG, have it use a wish outside of duplicating a spell. now you get a cool ability (possibly temporary), and the BBEG just got kicked in the nuts super hard. and possibly will never be able to use wish again.

so yeah, "a simulacrum is the same person as the original" is not a great ruling. it kinda solves some problems, but it also creates others.
It's clear that you misunderstood the post you were quoting.


am i being trolled or something? ok, since you CLEARLY can't be bothered to actually follow instructions, i will now attempt posting the thing i was responding to in this post. for no good reason, i mean, frankly, i *shouldn't* need to do this, it's already in print above, all you have to do is *actually* scroll up and read like i said to do in the post you quoted before telling me i have no idea what i'm doing , but here:
I posted what I did because I read the post you quoted and you clearly didn't understand that the post you quoted was talking about the concept from the OP, even though it quoted the OP with " " quotation marks. (Color highlighted for your convenience.)



While straight up saying no to simulacrum casing simulacrum is probably a good idea, the basic concept of "you are you, and so is he" is a great one that would cover it without the more arbitrary sounding restriction. After all, if you are you and so is he, then if he cast simulacrum, he would vanish because you (and thus you and he combined) can only ever have one.
so, let's parse that: this person just proposed that instead of the AL solution (which is that a simulacrum cannot cast simulacrum, and the consequences of wish spells used by a simulacrum (if any) fall on the creator of the simulacrum as well as the simulacrum), a simulacrum of you is the same person as you.
And this makes it abundantly clear that you did not understand. The suggestion is talking about skipping the direct "a simulacrum cannot cast simulacrum," and instead adding the spell Simulacrum alongside Wish in the "You are you, and so is he" rule. So a simulacrum casting simulacrum destroys itself by the "You can only have one simulacrum" rule.


and then i pointed out how that ruling could be abused. specifically, that someone could then make a simulacrum of someone else (such as, for example, the BBEG) using a wish spell, and then if that BBEG had the wish spell prepared, the simulacrum could be ordered to cast the spell dangerously and now the BBEG just ate the full consequences, because the BBEG and his/her simulacrum count as the same person.
Since Jas didn't suggest any change to the way the AL rule handles Wish, this wouldn't happen. You misunderstood Jas, and have now tripled?-down on that misunderstanding. Is that the right count?


and now i have been told *twice* that i don't understand the AL ruling. i understand the damn ruling. what you don't seem to understand is the concept of quoting a post to address that post specifically rather than something else. i quoted the bloody thing to make it clear what i was responding to. and then i *explained* that concept once already. this isn't rocket science. i wasn't responding to the original post, i was responding to the post that i quoted to show what i was responding to.
You quoted someone who quoted the AL rule, then pointed out an abuse that isn't possible by the quoted AL rule. What else was someone supposed to say? Thank you for pointing out that loophole in a rule no one suggested? Nice job knocking down that strawman? You misunderstood what Jas was talking about. Sir_argo corrected you. There's no need to be upset.

[SharkForce]

Then let me make this extra clear: The person you quoted:


Very clearly referenced this part of the OP here:


So when you point out an abuse like this:

It's clear that you misunderstood the post you were quoting.


I posted what I did because I read the post you quoted and you clearly didn't understand that the post you quoted was talking about the concept from the OP, even though it quoted the OP with " " quotation marks. (Color highlighted for your convenience.)


And this makes it abundantly clear that you did not understand. The suggestion is talking about skipping the direct "a simulacrum cannot cast simulacrum," and instead adding the spell Simulacrum alongside Wish in the "You are you, and so is he" rule. So a simulacrum casting simulacrum destroys itself by the "You can only have one simulacrum" rule.


Since Jas didn't suggest any change to the way the AL rule handles Wish, this wouldn't happen. You misunderstood Jas, and have now tripled?-down on that misunderstanding. Is that the right count?


You quoted someone who quoted the AL rule, then pointed out an abuse that isn't possible by the quoted AL rule. What else was someone supposed to say? Thank you for pointing out that loophole in a rule no one suggested? Nice job knocking down that strawman? You misunderstood what Jas was talking about. Sir_argo corrected you. There's no need to be upset.

in that case, there's a damned good reason "You are you, and so is He" is not a general principle, but an extremly specific rule that applies to one case and one case only (and that case even poorly reflects the name, because only a simulacrum of you could be argued to be you; a simulacrum of a bear is clearly not the same being as the wizard that created it, for example, and yet is absolutely an option for the simulacrum spell).

frankly, i hadn't even considered the possibility of treating the simulacrum and the creator as the same person as a general rule, because that would be a total catastrophe of a rule, and that should be immediately obvious. your simulacrum casts a concentration spell? well, there goes your own concentration spell. the simulacrum is hit by a hold person spell? well, now so are you. and so on. as a general rule, it would require a list of every possible thing that could be applied to the simulacrum that shouldn't be carried over to the creator. as a specific rule, it (combined with the other rule they introduced) fixes the only problem it ever needed to fix in the first place, with orders of magnitude less text, and with nearly zero chance of having horrific loopholes that break the spell in ways that are difficult to spot without hundreds or thousands of hours of playtesting.

frankly, i liked it better when i thought he was just talking about the specific rule applying to the copied creature instead of the creator. it was still bad, but it wasn't so bad as to be completely unusable.

[thereaper]

This doesn't actually fix simulacrum; only the most egregious abuse of it. You can still use it to bank spell slots, get around most of its limits by using it on other people, and use it to get access to monster abilities.

It's almost hard to find uses for the spell that aren't gamebreaking.

[Zalabim]

in that case, there's a damned good reason "You are you, and so is He" is not a general principle, but an extremly specific rule that applies to one case and one case only (and that case even poorly reflects the name, because only a simulacrum of you could be argued to be you; a simulacrum of a bear is clearly not the same being as the wizard that created it, for example, and yet is absolutely an option for the simulacrum spell).

frankly, i hadn't even considered the possibility of treating the simulacrum and the creator as the same person as a general rule, because that would be a total catastrophe of a rule, and that should be immediately obvious. your simulacrum casts a concentration spell? well, there goes your own concentration spell. the simulacrum is hit by a hold person spell? well, now so are you. and so on. as a general rule, it would require a list of every possible thing that could be applied to the simulacrum that shouldn't be carried over to the creator. as a specific rule, it (combined with the other rule they introduced) fixes the only problem it ever needed to fix in the first place, with orders of magnitude less text, and with nearly zero chance of having horrific loopholes that break the spell in ways that are difficult to spot without hundreds or thousands of hours of playtesting.

frankly, i liked it better when i thought he was just talking about the specific rule applying to the copied creature instead of the creator. it was still bad, but it wasn't so bad as to be completely unusable.
Nice job knocking down that strawman.


This doesn't actually fix simulacrum; only the most egregious abuse of it. You can still use it to bank spell slots, get around most of its limits by using it on other people, and use it to get access to monster abilities.

It's almost hard to find uses for the spell that aren't gamebreaking.
Ain't that the truth.

Okay, more seriously: Option A Feel free to describe how this is terrible, because it's going to be bad.
"You Are You, and So Is He"-expanded.
A simulacrum you create may use limited-use abilities, but you must pay any costs for their use. If a spell or ability has any specific consequences or limitations as well, such as the stress from certain uses of Wish, the penalty for casting Resurrection on a creature long-dead, or Mage Hand vanishing if you cast the spell again, those consequences and limitations apply to both you and your simulacrum. Thus, your simulacrum of a cleric may cast Resurrection only if you provide a 7th level or higher spell slot and the material components and if the target has been dead for longer than a year, both you and the simulacrum will be taxed by the casting.

Option B
"Leave AL alone"
A simulacrum cannot heal or rest as other creatures. It cannot benefit from short rests, long rests, or most effects that restore HP. It can only regain HP when repaired as described in the spell.

[Willie the Duck]

If we're just spit-balling less problematic alternatives to the spell as written, how about something loosely like "you create an semi-illusory copy of someone, who acts like them. As a spellcaster, you can charge the creation with those spells, which they can cast in your stead (using the same rules as if you'd cast them?" Now you have a spell which can make a duplicate of yourself/the evil wizard/the king and have it convincingly mimic them, even if they are spellcasters (if they are spellcasters of a different type, I hope you are multiclass). Of course, that only replaces the spell as written for what *I* want Simulacrum to do--allow you to create a duplicate of someone for Prince and the Pauper-style antics. To really replace the spell, I guess we'd have to answer the overall question--what is the intended purpose of the spell in general, assuming that it isn't there to cause DMs headaches.

[thereaper]

That would still allow you to bank spell slots.

[Toofey]

That's a feature not a bug.

[SharkForce]

Ain't that the truth.

Okay, more seriously: Option A Feel free to describe how this is terrible, because it's going to be bad.
"You Are You, and So Is He"-expanded.
A simulacrum you create may use limited-use abilities, but you must pay any costs for their use. If a spell or ability has any specific consequences or limitations as well, such as the stress from certain uses of Wish, the penalty for casting Resurrection on a creature long-dead, or Mage Hand vanishing if you cast the spell again, those consequences and limitations apply to both you and your simulacrum. Thus, your simulacrum of a cleric may cast Resurrection only if you provide a 7th level or higher spell slot and the material components and if the target has been dead for longer than a year, both you and the simulacrum will be taxed by the casting.

Option B
"Leave AL alone"
A simulacrum cannot heal or rest as other creatures. It cannot benefit from short rests, long rests, or most effects that restore HP. It can only regain HP when repaired as described in the spell.

if you hate the spell, just ban it. don't make it so bad that nobody should want to use it. yes, it is extremely powerful right now. but if you feel it ruins the game, just don't let it into the game. don't come up with all kinds of ways to make it a trap option, just make it not an option at all. i certainly wouldn't blame you... it's pretty disruptive in its current form in a lot of ways.

anyways, this restricts you to making only a simulacrum of something that can do what you do, which means one of the primary uses of simulacrum (creating a fake replacement of someone else) goes away. you couldn't copy a battlemaster without being a battlemaster, you couldn't copy a barbarian without being a barbarian, etc. or at least, they'd be laughably absurd copies that wouldn't fool anyone remotely familiar with the original.

but seriously. if you just want the spell to go away, then get rid of it. all you're doing with this change is making it useless for anyone who doesn't have a rogue in the party.

or at the very least, consider a total rework of the idea if you're going to try to keep it, instead of just nerfing it arbitrarily.

[Gurifu]

For what it's worth, these are the high-level spell changes that I like:


Simulacrum:
Simulacra cannot create Simulacra. You cannot create a Simulacrum of the same creature more than once per year. If the Simulacrum and its Creator take damage in the same round, both are immediately reduced to 0 hit points.

True Polymorph:
You can't polymorph anything into something that's much bigger than its original form or more than 100 degrees Celsius different in temperature.

Mirage Arcane:
This spell does not benefit from the Wizard ability Illusory Reality or Malleable Illusions.

[Zalabim]

To really replace the spell, I guess we'd have to answer the overall question--what is the intended purpose of the spell in general, assuming that it isn't there to cause DMs headaches.
This quote from Willie gets to the heart of the spell's problem.

anyways, this restricts you to making only a simulacrum of something that can do what you do, which means one of the primary uses of simulacrum (creating a fake replacement of someone else) goes away. you couldn't copy a battlemaster without being a battlemaster, you couldn't copy a barbarian without being a barbarian, etc. or at least, they'd be laughably absurd copies that wouldn't fool anyone remotely familiar with the original.
Considering there's no mechanic for a simulacrum to be mistaken for the original or not, I don't think that's the purpose of simulacrum, but it's something that is a primary source of confusion about the spell.

or at the very least, consider a total rework of the idea if you're going to try to keep it, instead of just nerfing it arbitrarily.
Option B is just trying to codify its "no experience, no gaining power, no regaining spell slots, alchemical process to repair it..." stuff. It shouldn't look arbitrary.

[SharkForce]

This quote from Willie gets to the heart of the spell's problem.

Considering there's no mechanic for a simulacrum to be mistaken for the original or not, I don't think that's the purpose of simulacrum, but it's something that is a primary source of confusion about the spell.

Option B is just trying to codify its "no experience, no gaining power, no regaining spell slots, alchemical process to repair it..." stuff. It shouldn't look arbitrary.

making it use all of your resources is the arbitrary nerf. and we know one of the functions of a simulacrum is to make convincing imposters, because D&D is a game with history.

as to a mechanic for a simulacrum to be mistaken for the original or not, 5e barely has defined mechanics for any ability checks. why would it have a mechanic for that in specific? is it likely to differ in any major way from other ability checks? the DM assigns a DC based on how hard it should be to tell the difference (probably fairly hard initially, since it is an actual duplicate; circumstances may make it easier, such as if the original hated your guts but the simulacrum is friendly to you and obeys your orders, or extremely easy, like if it has accumulated months worth of minor injuries that never seem to heal. or not needing a check at all, like if someone used an identify spell on the simulacrum to figure out why it detects as magical all the time).

[thereaper]

That's a feature not a bug.

Being intentionally broken doesn't make it less broken. If anything, it makes it worse.

[AttilatheYeon]

well, it is broken, and needs fixing... it's just a very simple and obvious fix, so not really a problem. well, for most people it isn't really a problem. for some people, apparently the fix is changing the simulacrum spell after they've chosen the spell and used it to have the simulacrum try to murder the original and take over their life. personally, the AL fix seems better to me, so i rather welcome an official acknowledgement of this problem (in much the same way that i welcome the semi-official acknowledgement that conjuring a bunch of pixies is broken as hell by the fact that AL doesn't allow pixies to be summoned, period. i'd welcome it more if they'd just fix their damned CR in the first place though).

but yeah, problems like this aren't really the big ones. the big ones are the ones that initially don't look like a problem.

May i ask where the no pixies rule is? This would make me very happy to see.

[SharkForce]

May i ask where the no pixies rule is? This would make me very happy to see.

... well, i *was* going to link you to the list of creatures you were permitted to summon (among other things) that was used in all previous editions of adventurer's league materials, which did not include pixies.

sadly, as of two days ago, that apparently got removed. http://dndadventurersleague.org/storm-kings-thunder-pg-and-dmg/ (it's in the 4th point).

so, unfortunately, you seem to have missed your opportunity... in the event that anyone is playing D&D with some of the main organizers of adventurer's league, please do the rest of us a favour and pixie spam them back to sanity =S

(huh... pixie spam them back to sanity is not something i would have ever guessed i would say).

[AttilatheYeon]

...(huh... pixie spam them back to sanity is not something i would have ever guessed i would say).

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5iC0YXspJRM