Is Simulacrum considered part of the standard wizard arsenal, or nah?

[Deathtongue]

Simulacrum needs little introduction, but to recap: if you have access to a source of ice, 8 hours, and 1500 gp you get a super-loyal half-hp copy that can't regain spells and is hard to repair. If you can keep it going and replace it without much difficulty, it causes your damage to skyrocket. Perhaps not outright double, but close to it.

My question is, since this spell seems so powerful, do you think the game designers and most DMs expect you to break it out if you have the GP for it? 85% of the time in home games and AL when I break it out the DMs don't seem to mind, but the 15% that do REALLY seem to mind. They rarely out-and-out ban it, but when you throw two fireballs and four Melf's Minute Meteors in a round, you can see their disgruntlement.

[Rickety Stick]

I would say nah.

[Blacky the Blackball]

I think this is one of those times when a spell has been held over from earlier traditions but its usage has changed, possibly taking the designers by surprise.

The main use - and seeming intention - of the spell in earlier editions (it's been around since AD&D and was in BECMI too) was to create a fake version of someone else that's under your control. so you can use that fake version for infiltration and espionage.

It's only in 5e that I've seen people talking about primarily using the spell on themselves;* and I've a feeling that primary use took the designers by surprise because it wasn't what they intended the spell to be for (or what they wrote its mechanics for).

Polymorph is similar. In older editions, polymorph was almost exclusively used to incapacitate enemies by turning them into pigs/toads/whatever; but in 5e the spell seems to be primarily used to turn willing allies into combat-effective creatures, and again I think that came as a surprise to the developers and they didn't write the spell with that primary purpose in mind.



*Although I did create an interesting example once where a wizard who was a member of the royal court cast it on herself before undergoing the ritual to become a lich, so that she had a "still alive" version of herself that could cover for her by continuing to attend necessary social events, and to put off people discovering that she'd become a lich for as long as possible.

[Monster Manuel]

Can you clarify what you mean by "a standard part of the wizard's arsenal"? I mean, it's a core PHB spell that wizards have, so, I guess, yeah?

If you're asking if it's commonly used? I think so, yes, but with reservations. Not all games get up to the point where this spell comes online, but for those that do it's too potent a tool to ignore.

My suspicion, game design-wise, is that the developers made the GP, time, and materials cost high enough that you could break it out for an important fight, but not so much that it's too pricey to use. They don't expect you to whip up a Simulacrum every day. The fact that the simulacrum can't recover spell slots says that it's intended to be temporary; cast all the extra spells, maybe soak a few hits, and let it melt.

In practice, I think Simulacra tend to stick around longer than intended, and see more regular use than expected. I also think that a Simulacra is not more potent of a minion than a Planar Binding summoning, or an undead made with Create Greater Undead. There's a lot of plot fun that can be had using this spell. On the other hand, there's some abuse potential that needs to be watch out for.

[Deathtongue]

It's only in 5e that I've seen people talking about primarily using the spell on themselves;* and I've a feeling that primary use took the designers by surprise because it wasn't what they intended the spell to be for (or what they wrote its mechanics for).That's interesting that you brought that up. Maybe my experience is atypical, but that 15% of the time DMs seem to mind the spell less when you make a copy of some other party member and order the Simulacrum to follow their orders. Such that they get the mini-Me instead of you.

Which IMO is oftentimes a more powerful use of the spell than just temporarily doubling up on wizard actions, since things like extra uses of Cutting Words or extra Aura of Conquests or extra Stunning Fists can bend game balance over its knee just as much (or even more) as extra Fireballs and extra Hastes.

[Talionis]

That's interesting that you brought that up. Maybe my experience is atypical, but that 15% of the time DMs seem to mind the spell less when you make a copy of some other party member and order the Simulacrum to follow their orders. Such that they get the mini-Me instead of you.

Which IMO is oftentimes a more powerful use of the spell than just temporarily doubling up on wizard actions, since things like extra uses of Cutting Words or extra Aura of Conquests or extra Stunning Fists can bend game balance over its knee just as much (or even more) as extra Fireballs and extra Hastes.

I tend to think this is the generally better use of Similacrum. You choose a character that doesn't use spells and recharge their abilities, so the Sim can last for days.

I don't think Wizard was balanced with Similacrum in mind, but its an icon Wizard spell for 5E. It has been nerfed and your DM should nerf any proposed major exploits, but it shouldn't break the game.

I also agree that "sharing the control of the Sim" tends make the party and DM happier.

[Sigreid]

If you use it on a wizard, it's good for basically extra atonement slots if you have spare staves or wands for it to use on your behalf. If you're a necromancer, it can catch and enslave an additional undead minion for you. While it can't prepare new spells, I think it would be able to copy them into your book for you. In a similar vein you could copy another wizard as a means to get their prepared spells.

All that said, I tend to use it to create a 100% trustworthy senechal to look after my stuff while I adventure. Yes, just like I would in real life my copy of myself would be made to do all my boring day to day chores.

[ATHATH]

Quick question about Simulacrum, while we're discussing it- the spell mentions being able to heal a simulacrum in a laboratory in a really expensive manner- but can't you just cast a healing spell on it or let it heal by spending its own hit dice? That bit of the spell is just a holdover from previous editions, then, right?

[Kaliayev]

Simulacrum needs little introduction, but to recap: if you have access to a source of ice, 8 hours, and 1500 gp you get a super-loyal half-hp copy that can't regain spells and is hard to repair. If you can keep it going and replace it without much difficulty, it causes your damage to skyrocket. Perhaps not outright double, but close to it.

My question is, since this spell seems so powerful, do you think the game designers and most DMs expect you to break it out if you have the GP for it? 85% of the time in home games and AL when I break it out the DMs don't seem to mind, but the 15% that do REALLY seem to mind. They rarely out-and-out ban it, but when you throw two fireballs and four Melf's Minute Meteors in a round, you can see their disgruntlement.

For the spell itself, no. As a candidate for a spare wish use, absolutely. Simulacrum's requirements are generally prohibitive. You have to mold a life-sized copy of someone out of ice/snow, have a piece of their DNA, and convince the targeted creature to model for you in what is likely to be an unwelcoming environment over the course of 12 hours. In order to convince your target, you will probably have to use Geas or some other form of sustained mental manipulation to get them to cooperate (ic, even party members are unlikely to jump at this offer). That being said, you can copy yourself, though the process might turn you insane or convince others that you are. On top of that, you're still wasting a lot of time and money by casting the spell. You're wasting even more if you maintain the simulacrum after it has been damaged. Wish negates the simulacrum's prohibitive nature, making it one of the best spells to copy with a wish spell.

[Sigreid]

Quick question about Simulacrum, while we're discussing it- the spell mentions being able to heal a simulacrum in a laboratory in a really expensive manner- but can't you just cast a healing spell on it or let it heal by spending its own hit dice? That bit of the spell is just a holdover from previous editions, then, right?

They can't be healed being essentially illusions and not creatures.

[ATHATH]

They can't be healed being essentially illusions and not creatures.
"The duplicate is a creature, partially real and formed from ice or snow, and it can take actions and otherwise be affected as a normal creature."

[Sigreid]

"The duplicate is a creature, partially real and formed from ice or snow, and it can take actions and otherwise be affected as a normal creature."

Yep, then it goes on to needing alchemy to heal them.

[Kaliayev]

"The duplicate is a creature, partially real and formed from ice or snow, and it can take actions and otherwise be affected as a normal creature."

Pictures a mad cleric/paladin/druid/bard routinely trying to heal ice/snow sculptures

[ATHATH]

Yep, then it goes on to needing alchemy to heal them.
Except that the spell never says that you need to heal it that way/that it can't be healed any other way, and instead seems to just outline a way that you can heal it (if you have way too much money and time to spare).

[Sigreid]

Except that the spell never says that you need to heal it that way/that it can't be healed any other way, and instead seems to just outline a way that you can heal it (if you have way too much money and time to spare).

If you can heal it normally that would make copying a powerful martial more appealing.

[Kaliayev]

A simulacrum is an illusory construct. Healing magic doesn't work on constructs. If you've convinced your DM otherwise, congrats?

[Eriol]

A simulacrum is an illusory construct. Healing magic doesn't work on constructs. If you've convinced your DM otherwise, congrats?
I would submit that there is a vast gulf between "you can repair it in an alchemical laboratory" (that's RAW) and "Healing magic doesn't work on constructs." (that's not in the description of Cure Wounds) In addition, the description of Simulacrum explicitly says that what is created is a creature, which RAW lines up with what Cure Wounds says.

RAI, who knows, but unless it's somewhere else in the PHB (or errata) if playing RAW I think I'd have to allow healing magic to be used on it.

[Kaliayev]

I would submit that there is a vast gulf between "you can repair it in an alchemical laboratory" (that's RAW) and "Healing magic doesn't work on constructs." (that's not in the description of Cure Wounds) In addition, the description of Simulacrum explicitly says that what is created is a creature, which RAW lines up with what Cure Wounds says.

RAI, who knows, but unless it's somewhere else in the PHB (or errata) if playing RAW I think I'd have to allow healing magic to be used on it.

Huh? Since when isn't it in the description of Cure Wounds?

"A creature you touch regains a number of hit points equal to 1d8 + your spellcasting ability modifier. This spell has no effect on undead or constructs."

With regard to whether or not it is a construct:

"The duplicate is a creature, partially real and formed from ice or snow, and it can take actions and otherwise be affected as a normal creature."

If that's not a construct, I know not what is a construct. You're welcome to read it differently, but c'est la vie. I suppose one can pose the question to sage advice if one wants a definitive answer.

[Spore]

As for the arsenal of NPC archmages. I would say idk. High level mages are individuals not a crowd so maybe you have a wizard with the spell known or not.

Remember scrolls of that spell level are rare. And withi wizards being fantasy scientists each one is bound to have a field of expertise.

[Sigreid]

I would consider the classic abuse of the spell to create it and use it to cast wish to give you resistance to a damage type. Repeat the cycle until bear barbarians are jealous. I'd be willing to continue the cycle for any party member who wanted to fund the simulacra spells for their resistances as they are my team and them being stronger is only of benefit to me.

I'm aware that there is an AL ruling that makes this useless by shifting the burn out chance from the simulacra to the controlling wizard. That sucks, but since I don't play AL it's not an issue for me. :smallbiggrin:

[Joe dirt]

Yep, then it goes on to needing alchemy to heal them.

What if u create one from a troll... which has natural regeneration

[Eriol]

Huh? Since when isn't it in the description of Cure Wounds?

"A creature you touch regains a number of hit points equal to 1d8 + your spellcasting ability modifier. This spell has no effect on undead or constructs."
Fair enough, read fail on my part for Cure Wounds.

With regard to whether or not it is a construct:

"The duplicate is a creature, partially real and formed from ice or snow, and it can take actions and otherwise be affected as a normal creature."

If that's not a construct, I know not what is a construct. You're welcome to read it differently, but c'est la vie. I suppose one can pose the question to sage advice if one wants a definitive answer.
The Simulacrum spell does NOT say "construct" in its description. Contrast that with the "Animate Objects" spell (PHB 213) where right below the stats block it says "An animated object is a construct". And Animate Dead the page before says "raising it as an undead creature." So we have examples of spells that explicitly say "undead" or "construct" in what they make, restricting their "products" from Cure Wounds usage and Simulacrum doesn't have these words. Thus RAW you can heal it without bumping into the restrictions from Cure Wounds.

Now as I said above, RAI I would not rule this way. I'd say it's pretty explicit how to heal them, and that's the ONLY way to heal them. But RAW strictly, you're allowed IMO.

[JackPhoenix]

What if u create one from a troll... which has natural regeneration

You can't, trolls aren't humanoids or beasts.

[Kaliayev]

The Simulacrum spell does NOT say "construct" in its description. Contrast that with the "Animate Objects" spell (PHB 213) where right below the stats block it says "An animated object is a construct". And Animate Dead the page before says "raising it as an undead creature." So we have examples of spells that explicitly say "undead" or "construct" in what they make, restricting their "products" from Cure Wounds usage and Simulacrum doesn't have these words. Thus RAW you can heal it without bumping into the restrictions from Cure Wounds.

Now as I said above, RAI I would not rule this way. I'd say it's pretty explicit how to heal them, and that's the ONLY way to heal them. But RAW strictly, you're allowed IMO.

Man, now I gotta quote the monster manual:


Constructs are made, not born. Some are
programmed by their creators to'follow a simple set of
instructions, while others are imbued with sentience
and capable of independent thought. Golems are the
iconic constructs. Many creatures native to the outer
plane of Mechanus, such as modrons, are constructs
shaped from the raw material of the plane by the will of
more powerful creatures.

While the spell doesn't explicitly state that the creature type is construct (doesn't explicitly state what creature type it is), the above indicates that construct is the simulacrum's most applicable creature type. If we apply MM's RAW, the simulacrum is a construct. That said, being a construct is a bit of a wash. While a construct can't be healed, there are also a number of other spells that can't affect a construct. Since I'm arguing that a simulacrum is a construct that can't be affected by healing magic, it also can't be affected by an antilife shell, blight, etc.

The distinction had to be made in necromancy spells because the target was previously humanoid. Animate objects required the distinction because there are different rules for attacking and damaging objects. Simulacrum made the distinction that the duplicate is a creature, removing much of the need to classify that creature as a construct. Unfortunately, this created ambiguity.

p.s. It looks like this has already been adjudicated indirectly (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/01/18/can-the-creature-created-by-simulacrum-be-healed-by-spells/). We are all failures at checking sage advice.

p.p.s. I am curious how Crawford would rule on this debate over simulacrum's creature type, though one would have to cite numerous sources for proper context. Alas, twitter, which generally denies efforts to provide context, is the avenue for questions. Some past questions, that weren't properly contextualized, have gotten some odd answers, which had to be addressed with further questions.

[JackPhoenix]

Snip

"the illusion uses all the statistics of the creature it duplicates."

Creature type is part of the creature's statistics. So yes, it does explicitly state what the duplicate is.

[Kaliayev]

"the illusion uses all the statistics of the creature it duplicates."

Creature type is part of the creature's statistics. So yes, it does explicitly state what the duplicate is.

And yet, it can't be healed with magic, whereas a beast or humanoid can.

You left out the "otherwise" and the fact that your quote follows the statement I quoted previously. We may as well quote the MM and the entire spell, bolding the parts that have been debated in this thread:


You shape an illusory duplicate of one beast or humanoid that is within range for the entire casting time of the spell. The duplicate is a creature, partially real and formed from ice or snow, and it can take actions and otherwise be affected as a normal creature. It appears to be the same as the original, but it has half the creature's hit point maximum and is formed without any equipment. Otherwise, the illusion uses all the statistics of the creature it duplicates.

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

If the simulacrum is damaged, you can repair it in an alchemical laboratory, using rare herbs and minerals worth 100 gp per hit point it regains. The simulacrum lasts until it drops to 0 hit points, at which point it reverts to snow and melts instantly.

If you cast this spell again, any currently active duplicates you created with this spell are instantly destroyed.


Constructs are made, not born. Some are
programmed by their creators to'follow a simple set of
instructions, while others are imbued with sentience
and capable of independent thought. Golems are the
iconic constructs. Many creatures native to the outer
plane of Mechanus, such as modrons, are constructs
shaped from the raw material of the plane by the will of
more powerful creatures.


"Partially real and formed from ice or snow" precedes "otherwise, the illusion uses all the statistics of the creature it duplicates." I argue that the MM's description of construct applies the construct tag to the simulacrum's created creature, prior to anything else related to the creature's statistics. In other words, the simulacrum's creature type is construct, even though it copied a humanoid or beast. It can only be healed at an alchemical laboratory, as verified by Crawford. Besides type, max hp (ignore hit dice too), and equipment, all stats reflect the subject's. Like I said before, the spell description creates ambiguity, and we aren't necessarily going to read it the same way.

[JackPhoenix]

And yet, it can't be healed with magic, whereas a beast or humanoid can.

You left out the "otherwise" and the fact that your quote follows the statement I quoted previously. We may as well quote the MM and the entire spell, bolding the parts that have been debated in this thread:

Which has nothing to do with the creature's statistics, and everything to do with the text of the spell. The "otherwise" is irrelevant, that's why I left it out. The spell lists other differences: half health compared to original, and no equipment.


"Partially real and formed from ice or snow" precedes "otherwise, the illusion uses all the statistics of the creature it duplicates." I argue that the MM's description of construct applies the construct tag to the simulacrum's created creature, prior to anything else related to the creature's statistics. In other words, the simulacrum's creature type is construct, even though it copied a humanoid or beast. It can only be healed at an alchemical laboratory, as verified by Crawford. Besides type, max hp (ignore hit dice too), and equipment, all stats reflect the subject's. Like I said before, the spell description creates ambiguity, and we aren't necessarily going to read it the same way.

MM's description of constructs is just fluff, and it has no bearing on mechanics of the spell, or anything else. Many undead, fiends, elementals, aberrations and monstrosities are also "made, not born", yet they aren't constructs either.

[Kaliayev]

Many undead, fiends, elementals, aberrations and monstrosities are also "made, not born"

I am curious about this. Do you have some specific examples of creatures that were made and violate the description of their creature type?

[JackPhoenix]

I am curious about this. Do you have some specific examples of creatures that were made and violate the description of their creature type?

Sure. Skeletons and zombies for undead, but there's much more. Crawling Claws and Flameskulls, if you think using the whole corpse is cheating. Pretty much every fiend is not born, but spawned by their respective plane, but Yugoloth deserve special mention, as they were created by hags instead of spawning from mortal souls "naturally". For elementals, Azer's fluff even has a paragraph named "made, not born". Gibbering Mouthers were "created by foul sorcery", but Intellect Devourers are propably better examples for aberrations. And though many monstrosities were originally created by magic, they reproduce by normal means, but there are still examples in Banderhobbs and Froghemoths.

If you want to include things that were transformed from another form, there's much more. And True Polymorph may turn rocks into normal creatures of any type, up to CR 9, if you don't want to start with a living being.

[Eriol]

p.s. It looks like this has already been adjudicated indirectly (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/01/18/can-the-creature-created-by-simulacrum-be-healed-by-spells/). We are all failures at checking sage advice.
Fair enough. Sage Advice is the closest thing to a "judge" on RAW we have right now. I think a few of the answers he gives create more problems, but in this one it's lining up what I already said I thought RAI is with the "SA Version" of RAW, whereas I was arguing more from a "legalese" perspective. IMO the spell description needs an update to be explicit "the only way to heal the simulacrum is..." as opposed to the text they used.

[Asmotherion]

Define Standard.

The ability to cast spells beyond 5th level is Considered Exceptional in it's own Right. A wizard with access to 7th level spells is not standard, and in some settings may be considered a prodigy or something supernatural.

If your game does happen to reach that level, and your DM does not give you any limitations on it, I don't see a reason why you wouldn't take it, other than theme.

As a DM, I generally go for thematic spell picks; that said, secretly fighting someone's double (and plot making it that you loose the body) makes an excelent adventure hook for latter on, so that I can give some paranoia feeling of "this wasn't even my final form" and "is he really dead this time?". Rince and repeat a couple times., and add clone to the recipie... :P And that's how you can have an early encounter with an aspiring Lich.

[fbelanger]

Fair enough. Sage Advice is the closest thing to a "judge" on RAW we have right now. I think a few of the answers he gives create more problems, but in this one it's lining up what I already said I thought RAI is with the "SA Version" of RAW, whereas I was arguing more from a "legalese" perspective. IMO the spell description needs an update to be explicit "the only way to heal the simulacrum is..." as opposed to the text they used.

I think rules are written for players with a certain amount of common sense and not for a nasty lawyers.

[Kaliayev]

Fair enough. Sage Advice is the closest thing to a "judge" on RAW we have right now. I think a few of the answers he gives create more problems, but in this one it's lining up what I already said I thought RAI is with the "SA Version" of RAW, whereas I was arguing more from a "legalese" perspective. IMO the spell description needs an update to be explicit "the only way to heal the simulacrum is..." as opposed to the text they used.

I agree. It's a poorly written spell that is inherently ambiguous on a number of fronts. I'm trying to make sense of that as best I can.


Sure. Skeletons and zombies for undead, but there's much more. Crawling Claws and Flameskulls, if you think using the whole corpse is cheating. Pretty much every fiend is not born, but spawned by their respective plane, but Yugoloth deserve special mention, as they were created by hags instead of spawning from mortal souls "naturally". For elementals, Azer's fluff even has a paragraph named "made, not born". Gibbering Mouthers were "created by foul sorcery", but Intellect Devourers are propably better examples for aberrations. And though many monstrosities were originally created by magic, they reproduce by normal means, but there are still examples in Banderhobbs and Froghemoths.

Ah, I was hoping for some weirder examples, like the yuan-ti pureblood but relevant. Description of undead:


Undead are once-living creatures brought to a
horrifying state of undeath through the practice of
necromantic magic or some unholy curse. Undead
include walking corpses, such as vampires and zombies,
as well as bodiless spirits, such as ghosts and specters

Skeletons, zombies, crawling claws, and flameskulls are made by necromantic magic or some unholy curse. They don't violate the description. Yugoloth is a subtype of fiend (compare to the demon and devil subtypes). While they are made, they are fiends specially made by fiends (night hags created them) in evil planes. That is, whatever method used in their creation drew from the evil nature of their plane and creators. With regard to Azer:


Elementals are creatures native to the elemental
planes. Some creatures of this type are little more than
animate masses of their respective elements, including
the creatures simply called elementals. Others have
biological forms infused with elemental energy. The
races of genies, including djinn and efreet, form the
most important civilizations on the elemental planes.
Other elemental creatures include azers, invisible
stalkers, and water weirds.

Azer fits the description of an animate mass of its respective element, albeit mostly housed in a bronze shell, which was crafted. This comes closest to challenging the nature of creature types in our debate, as golems are similarly infused with a "spirit" from an elemental plane of earth. However, since the "spirit" is such a tiny spark of life that the golem retains no memory, personality, or history from that spirit, the resulting creature can't be treated as an earth elemental. The creation of a simulacrum resembles that of a golem, with the spark of life afforded by the creature's DNA and presence during creation having greater weight than what is used to create a golem. The spell has an interesting limitation of only allowing humanoids and beasts to be subjects. I'm curious how the spark of life ultimately relates to the nature of these creature types.

Gibbering mouther is certainly an oddity, but not one that violates the description for aberration. Since an intellect devourer is created by an aberration, I would say it fits an aberration's description. That is, it's an alien ritual creating an alien creature from a thrall. Monstrosities are quite bizarre, but their description says as much:


Monstrosities are monsters in the strictest sense- frightening creatures that are not ordinary, not truly
natural, and almost never benign. Some are the
results of magical experimentation gone awry (such
as owlbears), and others ,are the product-of terrible
curses (including minotaurs and yuan-ti). They defy
categorization, and in some sense serve as a catch-all
category for creatures that don't fit into any other type

It's literally the blanket type for "we couldn't comfortably classify this as any other type." You're going to have a very hard time convincing me that monstrosities are at all relevant.



If you want to include things that were transformed from another form, there's much more. And True Polymorph may turn rocks into normal creatures of any type, up to CR 9, if you don't want to start with a living being.

Creatures that have transformed from one type to another, with transmutation spells and necromantic magic excluded (undead type), are typically thoroughly altered, corrupted, or chosen by a higher power. For example, a night hag was a fey hag who spent enough time in a lower plane to transform into a fiend. The higher power of the lower plane transformed a fey creature into a fiend. I imagine a hag indefinitely imprisoned in an upper plane would eventually transform into a celestial. Now, a celestial hag is something I would like to see (would it actually be attractive? I've been contemplating hags all wrong). However, I don't consider such higher power transformations applicable to this particular debate, as simulacrum doesn't reach such lofty heights.

This comment about true polymorph is interesting. It strikes at the nature of the various schools of magic. Let's take a look at the description for that spell's school:


Transmutation spells change the properties of a creature, object, or environment. They might turn an enemy into a harmless creature, bolster the strength of an ally, make an object move at the caster’s command, or enhance a creature’s innate healing abilities to rapidly recover from injury.

Simulacrum is an illusion spell, so its nature is inherently distinct from something like true polymorph. Should simulacrum be a transmutation spell? If it's turning an ice/snow sculpture into a humanoid/beast, it should be. Simulacrum truly is a mess of a spell.


p.s. Does a creature with truesight see an ice/snow sculpture or a humanoid/beast?

p.p.s. What happens if you die while your simulacrum is active? It likely follows your last order to the best of its ability until it dies. That sounds like a construct to me.

[CircleOfTheRock]

Quick question about Simulacrum, while we're discussing it- the spell mentions being able to heal a simulacrum in a laboratory in a really expensive manner- but can't you just cast a healing spell on it or let it heal by spending its own hit dice? That bit of the spell is just a holdover from previous editions, then, right?
By RAW you could heal it exactly so, but that obviously isn’t the designer’s intent, given that the text mentions a laboratory at all.

[JackPhoenix]

Snip

Well, by that logic, Simulacrum fits the MM description of a humanoid:

Humanoids are the main peoples of the D&D
world, both civilized and savage, including humans
and a tremendous variety of other species. They have
language and culture, few if any innate magical abilities
(though most humanoids can learn spellcasting), and a
bipedal form.


The spell has an interesting limitation of only allowing humanoids and beasts to be subjects. I'm curious how the spark of life ultimately relates to the nature of these creature types.

I think the answer to that is pretty clear: "We can't allow players to create their own dragons or angels or whatever, but humanoids and animals should be fine". Nothing to do with fluff, everything to do with balance (though they still undershoot on the safety measures in that regard)


p.p.s. What happens if you die while your simulacrum is active? It likely follows your last order to the best of its ability until it dies. That sounds like a construct to me.

It's friendly, intelligent, and shares your memory. Unless you specifically forbid it from acting unless commanded, in which case it still follows your spoken command, it can act on its own. It may seek to take your place, or to get you resurrected, or whatever else fits best with someone who's just your copy and knows it.

[Kaliayev]

I think the answer to that is pretty clear: "We can't allow players to create their own dragons or angels or whatever, but humanoids and animals should be fine". Nothing to do with fluff, everything to do with balance (though they still undershoot on the safety measures in that regard)

You and I appear to fundamentally disagree about the value of world building, so I don't think either of us will convince the other. However, I have found this discussion interesting, so thanks for your input.


It's friendly, intelligent, and shares your memory. Unless you specifically forbid it from acting unless commanded, in which case it still follows your spoken command, it can act on its own. It may seek to take your place, or to get you resurrected, or whatever else fits best with someone who's just your copy and knows it.

I will totally grant that it's typically smarter than your average construct, by virtue of copying creatures with variable int scores. If you're copying a stupid beast or feeble-minded humanoid, it probably isn't smarter than your average construct. Let's say your final order before your death was "attack my enemies." If you copied yourself, the simulacrum probably has a great deal of leeway in terms of following your order after your death. It probably knows who your past enemies are and will start hunting them down, until it dies. If you copied someone else with comparable intelligence, the simulacrum will probably kill all the enemies in immediate proximity of you when you died. That is, it will kill whoever was fighting you. After that, it probably doesn't do much, unless it is convinced you had other enemies. If you copied an int 3 humanoid/beast, the simulacrum might not be able to distinguish who your enemies are and might go on a rampage after you die, albeit a short rampage.

Here are some relevant sage advice rulings:

Personality (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/03/18/how-much-personality-will-simulacrum-have/)

Orders (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/05/14/can-a-simulacrum-be-ordered-to-obey-another-party-member/)

This one is for fun. Crawford clearly gets frustrated with the nature of the spell and the questioner's line of reasoning. He might have the same reaction to our debate: Your DM decides (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/13/simulacrum-inability/)

p.s. What happens when you true polymorph a simulacrum? You and I agree that a simulacrum is a creature until the spell ends. That means we would follow the "creature into creature" portion of true polymorph. The simulacrum's CR is equal to the subject of the original spell. If you copied yourself and you're level 20, you could turn the creature into an ancient metallic or chromatic dragon. The simulacrum dragon "retains its alignment and personality." Its alignment is the same as the subject of the spell. Heck, you could wind up with a good chromatic dragon or an evil metallic dragon. Its personality is somewhat limited from being a mind controlled slave. It will probably continue following your orders for a while. Since it's no longer what it was, the limitations imposed by simulacrum no longer apply. It can learn, heal, and so on. It doesn't have to follow your orders, though it might want to for various reasons (e.g. it actually likes you or you've threatened to dispel the true polymorph). It could develop a consciousness that eventually mirrors its kind (i.e. metallic/chromatic dragon) or a truly unique consciousness. Ooh, this is starting to sound like Ex Machina.

p.p.s. What happens if the above true polymorph is eventually dispelled? The creature then becomes a simulacrum again, right? That could be an interesting headache for the simulacrum and its creator.

[Willie the Duck]

I think rules are written for players with a certain amount of common sense and not for a nasty lawyers.

Just reading this thread makes me feel like the game has failed to bring along (all of) its' audience in a major way. People keep throwing about 'RAW' and 'RAI' like it was 2004 and we were on the Wizards message board arguing that the game was 'broken' because you could heal hit points by drowning or that the Rules Compendium was literally meaningless because the core books were reprinted or whatever.

The game designers were explicit, forthright, and straightforward in stating that they were going towards a 'rulings, not rules' mentality, so we shouldn't be surprised that we can find some contradictions if we all put on our poindexter hats and sift the verbiage with a fine toothed comb.

I for one am willing to say that they implied that the lab-healing was the method to use to heal one, probably should have mentioned that other standard healing methods wouldn't work, but didn't.

[Zalabim]

It's friendly, intelligent, and shares your memory. Unless you specifically forbid it from acting unless commanded, in which case it still follows your spoken command, it can act on its own. It may seek to take your place, or to get you resurrected, or whatever else fits best with someone who's just your copy and knows it.
Everything after "it's friendly" is really up to the DM, because the spell description doesn't make any of it clear. It has a specifiable attitude, but it doesn't say it copies the target's personality or memory, only statistics. It can take actions, but actually takes its actions on its creator's turn in combat. It can be given verbal orders, with no "if not given orders, then the simulacrum will X" sentence like some other spells. It doesn't say, like Find Familiar does, that it can act independently, but still follows orders. It's plausible to boil the simulacrum down to a brainless puppet, since there's no definitive statement that a simulacrum has any will to act on its own.