Clone as a means of beating old age

[Segev]

The spell creates a duplicate body that brings back an already-dead character provided he isn’t dead of old age. It requires a chunk of flesh from the original, and takes 2d4 months to grow. It can be preserved with other magic if the character yet lives, and revive the character at the moment of his death.

In earlier editions, the spell had text (assuming my memory serves me) that said something about coming back as the character was when the flesh was taken (though if taken from a corpse before rot set in it still came back alive). In 5e, the spell explicitly let’s you set the Clone’s age to any that is no older than the original was when you removed the flesh chunk.

Nothing is stated in 3.5 or PF1 about this, though it mentions taking 2d4 months to grow in a lab.

How likely would you, as a DM, be to consider the clones as being at the age the body was when the bit of flesh was taken, and how generous would you be to the 2d4 months being interrupted early to produce a clone significantly younger than the final growth state?

Would the expense and (let’s face it) pain of providing the material component at an age you wanted to be able to return to be enough of a cost for semi-immortality and semi-agelessness? What about actually being able to come back younger by interrupting the growth early?

As a final thought, if extracting the chunk of flesh from a living person to prepare the clone prophylactically, what would be the least painful and long-term inconvenient way to get that cubic inch of flesh? Sure, regeneration is probably in reach at thirteenth level, but it’s one more cost and cutting off fingers or the like is still probably pretty awful. What’s the optimal way to do this for somebody who isn’t really into self-mutilation if they can avoid it? Or is this really a “make sure you have a cleric on hand to fix it” deal?

[sleepyphoenixx]

How likely would you, as a DM, be to consider the clones as being at the age the body was when the bit of flesh was taken, and how generous would you be to the 2d4 months being interrupted early to produce a clone significantly younger than the final growth state?

Would the expense and (let’s face it) pain of providing the material component at an age you wanted to be able to return to be enough of a cost for semi-immortality and semi-agelessness? What about actually being able to come back younger by interrupting the growth early?
I wouldn't allow it because it would make lichdom (and similar forms of immortality) make even less sense than they already do.
Old age is supposed to be a hard limit to using the more palatable forms of resurrection for immortality and i like it that way.

Even Reincarnate is a little distasteful to me, at least when used for the purpose of just getting a new, young adult body.
Imo an actual druid casting it like that should fall for violating his "revere nature" requirement, but at least it's balanced by having no control over what you come back as.


As a final thought, if extracting the chunk of flesh from a living person to prepare the clone prophylactically, what would be the least painful and long-term inconvenient way to get that cubic inch of flesh? Sure, regeneration is probably in reach at thirteenth level, but it’s one more cost and cutting off fingers or the like is still probably pretty awful. What’s the optimal way to do this for somebody who isn’t really into self-mutilation if they can avoid it? Or is this really a “make sure you have a cleric on hand to fix it” deal?
Probably something like putting on a bit of weight and cutting out some of your belly fat? There's spells and poisons that suppress pain, so that shouldn't be an issue.
If you don't mind scarring you probably don't even need a cleric, a simple CLW potion should suffice.
You could even stitch it closed and let it heal naturally, but why would you do that if you don't have to?

[Venger]

Nothing is stated in 3.5 or PF1 about this, though it mentions taking 2d4 months to grow in a lab.
I disagree:

The clone is physically identical with the original and possesses the same personality and memories as the original. In other respects, treat the clone as if it were the original character raised from the dead
This seems pretty (pardon the pun) clear cut to me. Being rez'd normally does not affect your age, even if you are rez'd from old (read:young) remains, so I see no raw reason that it would function that way regarding clone.


How likely would you, as a DM, be to consider the clones as being at the age the body was when the bit of flesh was taken, and how generous would you be to the 2d4 months being interrupted early to produce a clone significantly younger than the final growth state?
If you're asking about RAW, I see absolutely no wiggle room here.

If you're asking about a normal gm in practice cutting a user of this frankly terrible spell a tiny break after they cut out a 1 inch lardon from their stomach and carry it around in a glass box full of unguent of timelessness or quintessence for years or decades, managing to never let it spoil or be stolen or eaten, then probably yes.

Even in this scenario though of a friendly gm, I can see no justification in allowing you to prematurely stop the loading time for the clone spell, gaining a free younger body out of the process. There is no potential impracticality here, and there's nothing in the spell text that implies your new body is functional before your body is done printing. I would imagine either it grows out like rock candy from wherever the perfect 1 inch cube of flesh was located on your body or if your game is more humorous, grows in a perfectly horizontal line from the head or feet like an old computer file.


Would the expense and (let’s face it) pain of providing the material component at an age you wanted to be able to return to be enough of a cost for semi-immortality and semi-agelessness? What about actually being able to come back younger by interrupting the growth early?
There is no expense or pain involved in cutting out a 1 inch chunk of your brisket at a good age. If you were planning to do this, you'd just have your character put one or more chunks of flesh in the freezer full of quintessence like a wedding cake at your destination age and then carry them around forever. Same answers as above.


As a final thought, if extracting the chunk of flesh from a living person to prepare the clone prophylactically, what would be the least painful and long-term inconvenient way to get that cubic inch of flesh? Sure, regeneration is probably in reach at thirteenth level, but it’s one more cost and cutting off fingers or the like is still probably pretty awful. What’s the optimal way to do this for somebody who isn’t really into self-mutilation if they can avoid it? Or is this really a “make sure you have a cleric on hand to fix it” deal?
If you or your friends have access to disintegration finesse, zap yourself with it and kill the tissue around the 1 inch chunk, so it'll just fall right out with no pain, like using those wart freezer kits you buy at the supermarket. If not, just buy or rent a nipple clamp of exquisite pain, measure 1 inch with a ruler and felt pen and do it yourself with a knife, scalpel, or sharp piece of flint. Throw the chunk(s) in either an extradimensional storage space that you've destroyed all the oxygen in (meat shouldn't be able to rot in it) or if your gm's giving you a hard time, in a ziploc bag full of quintessence or unguent of timelessness until you need it.

This system doesn't use wound points, so there's no reason that a 1 inch chunk of flesh which doesn't have to be a specific location would require regeneration fx. You can definitely just handle it with any kind of magical or even nonmagical healing.

[sleepyphoenixx]

this frankly terrible spell
How so? It's a cheaper undispellable contingent Raise Dead that doesn't cost you a feat.
The 2d4 months growing time may be a bit annoying if you're pressed for time and your DM doesn't allow you to write it into your backstory, but that doesn't make it a bad spell, merely a situational one which is hardly a drawback for a downtime spell like that.


carry it around in a glass box full of unguent of timelessness or quintessence for years or decades, managing to never let it spoil or be stolen or eaten, then probably yes.
Why would you do that? It's pretty much guaranteed that you'll at least temporarily lose all your gear when you do get killed.
And any enemy who finds carefully preserved tissue samples will probably recognize their value if he knows even a tiny bit about magic.

They don't even need to realize it's YOUR flesh. A part of a creature is a powerful component for many spells after all, not just Clone.
Simulacrum, Consume Likeness or various divinations come to mind.
And it's obvious you at least considered them valuable, so it must be something good.

Everyone who doesn't recognize what they are will either dump them as worthless (and creepy) or, in the case of most good religions, destroy them.

[Venger]

How so? It's a cheaper undispellable contingent Raise Dead that doesn't cost you a feat.
The 2d4 months growing time may be a bit annoying if you're pressed for time and your DM doesn't allow you to write it into your backstory, but that doesn't make it a bad spell, merely a situational one which is hardly a drawback for a downtime spell like that.
You're paying an 8th to lose a level and have it take at least 2 months (setting aside the use of a fast time deimplane).


Why would you do that? It's pretty much guaranteed that you'll at least temporarily lose all your gear when you do get killed.
And any enemy who finds carefully preserved tissue samples will probably recognize their value if he knows even a tiny bit about magic.

They don't even need to realize it's YOUR flesh. A part of a creature is a powerful component for many spells after all, not just Clone.
Simulacrum, Consume Likeness or various divinations come to mind.
And it's obvious you at least considered them valuable, so it must be something good.

Everyone who doesn't recognize what they are will either dump them as worthless (and creepy) or, in the case of most good religions, destroy them.
Fine then, put it in a vault or something someplace off your person that is large enough to accommodate you.

[Segev]

First off, thanks for the replies! I largely agree that the RAW don't offer any "it makes you younger than when the chunk was taken" rules. The idea of interrupting the growth process is just something that seems like it could be interesting, thematically, but also yes makes things like lichdom less attractive. Admittedly, liches happen at level 11, while clone isn't available until level 15, so...maybe that's the difference? Well, that, and lichdom is more fire-and-forget, with less need to maintain...anything.

I also want to address the notion of its utility: don't carry around a chunk of your own flesh. You set up your lab and cast the spell right after cutting out said flesh. Or as soon after as you're able. When the 2d4 months have passed, you use gentle repose to preserve the body. Or quintessence, or unguent of timelessness, or something. If you die, you wake up in the lab. (Well, here's where quintessence might be a bad idea, since you'd be stuck in it and frozen.)

All that said, I'd like to examine the age thing a bit more.

If you are 25 and cast the spell to clone yourself, then preserve the body, and you die 30 years later at 55 to a sad mishap wherein you decided to go adventuring but were rusty and a dragon ate you, has your (preserved for the last 30 years) clone body been aging along with you, or, as an inert bit of flesh primed to receive your spirit and magically preserved against rot, has it remained 25 years old?

Clone won't bring you back if you've died of old age, but it doesn't say it can't bring you back if it's been too long since you died. If somebody has a preserved chunk of your flesh and casts clone a hundred years past the point you would have died of old age, but you'd died at 28 years old of violence, I think it should be able to bring you back. Raise dead could if you had a high enough CL on it (ridiculously so, obviously, but still). Raise dead and its higher level cousins (which expressly have decades they can reach back) don't say that a creature brought back by them ages up to where it would be had it lived out that time. Neither does clone.

But the question remains whether you're the age of the clone body (which theoretically matches the age at which it was made, or at which the chunk was taken from your body) or you're the age you were when you died.

[sleepyphoenixx]

You're paying an 8th to lose a level and have it take at least 2 months (setting aside the use of a fast time deimplane).
Afaik every rez method loses you a level except for True Resurrection, True Reincarnate (MotW) and Cocoon (SpC). Unless i'm forgetting something?
Ignoring Last Breath, Revivify and Revenance, since they're obviously superior if you can get them within the limited timeframe allowed.

Not being able to benefit from those is probably the big drawback of Clone now that i think of it.
Though i suppose you could get the best of both worlds if you use Celerity, Contingency or Craft Contingent Spell to cast Magic Jar when you die, giving your allies time to rez your body before you resort to using your Clone. Or use an item like the Amulet of Spirit Storing (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/MagicItems.pdf) or any other method of making your soul not "free to return" but still available for rezzing.

And it's a downtime spell, so as long as you can cast 8th level spells you're not really paying anything except the material cost,
especially if you're in a situation where you can wait at least 2 months for the spells effect.

Afaik the only other effects that provide that kind of TPK protection are Astral Seed - which brings you back how you where at the moment of manifesting it instead of the moment of death and requires a tenday instead of instantly returning you to life if you die, effectively trading less prep time for a worse effect - and lichdom, which comes with a +4 LA, a 1d10 days wait time and a significant price tag.

Edit:
If you are 25 and cast the spell to clone yourself, then preserve the body, and you die 30 years later at 55 to a sad mishap wherein you decided to go adventuring but were rusty and a dragon ate you, has your (preserved for the last 30 years) clone body been aging along with you, or, as an inert bit of flesh primed to receive your spirit and magically preserved against rot, has it remained 25 years old?
According to the RAW i'd say it ages along with you no matter how you preserved it. Or maybe it only ages rapidly the moment your soul enters it.


The clone is physically identical with the original and possesses the same personality and memories as the original. In other respects, treat the clone as if it were the original character raised from the dead
Does Raise Dead make you younger? It doesn't. It may not make logical sense but it's magic so it doesn't have to.


Clone won't bring you back if you've died of old age, but it doesn't say it can't bring you back if it's been too long since you died. If somebody has a preserved chunk of your flesh and casts clone a hundred years past the point you would have died of old age, but you'd died at 28 years old of violence, I think it should be able to bring you back. Raise dead could if you had a high enough CL on it (ridiculously so, obviously, but still). Raise dead and its higher level cousins (which expressly have decades they can reach back) don't say that a creature brought back by them ages up to where it would be had it lived out that time. Neither does clone.
You don't age while you're dead. That should be obvious.
Assuming you could get a preserved bit of flesh you could indeed raise anyone who didn't die of old age no matter how long they've been gone.

I don't see how that helps you avoid aging while staying alive though.


But the question remains whether you're the age of the clone body (which theoretically matches the age at which it was made, or at which the chunk was taken from your body) or you're the age you were when you died.
See above. Going by the RAW i'd say it's definitely the latter, same as being raised normally.

[Venger]

I also want to address the notion of its utility: don't carry around a chunk of your own flesh. You set up your lab and cast the spell right after cutting out said flesh. Or as soon after as you're able. When the 2d4 months have passed, you use gentle repose to preserve the body. Or quintessence, or unguent of timelessness, or something. If you die, you wake up in the lab. (Well, here's where quintessence might be a bad idea, since you'd be stuck in it and frozen.)
Right, obviously, you store it someplace and basically treat it like a phylactery.



All that said, I'd like to examine the age thing a bit more.

If you are 25 and cast the spell to clone yourself, then preserve the body, and you die 30 years later at 55 to a sad mishap wherein you decided to go adventuring but were rusty and a dragon ate you, has your (preserved for the last 30 years) clone body been aging along with you, or, as an inert bit of flesh primed to receive your spirit and magically preserved against rot, has it remained 25 years old?
As I said earlier, in this instance, you would come back at your current, real age which is 55 years old.



Clone won't bring you back if you've died of old age, but it doesn't say it can't bring you back if it's been too long since you died. If somebody has a preserved chunk of your flesh and casts clone a hundred years past the point you would have died of old age, but you'd died at 28 years old of violence, I think it should be able to bring you back. Raise dead could if you had a high enough CL on it (ridiculously so, obviously, but still). Raise dead and its higher level cousins (which expressly have decades they can reach back) don't say that a creature brought back by them ages up to where it would be had it lived out that time. Neither does clone.

But the question remains whether you're the age of the clone body (which theoretically matches the age at which it was made, or at which the chunk was taken from your body) or you're the age you were when you died.
That's because you don't age when you're dead. If you cut off a piece of yourself and stored it for decades, were killed so the rest of your body was destroyed, and then raise dead or resurrection was cast on it, you would not suddenly become decades younger either. In the example you've given, you are alive, adventuring and thus aging normally.

[KillianHawkeye]

I also want to address the notion of its utility: don't carry around a chunk of your own flesh. You set up your lab and cast the spell right after cutting out said flesh. Or as soon after as you're able. When the 2d4 months have passed, you use gentle repose to preserve the body. Or quintessence, or unguent of timelessness, or something. If you die, you wake up in the lab. (Well, here's where quintessence might be a bad idea, since you'd be stuck in it and frozen.)

The Stronghold Builder's Guidebook has the Pantry of Preservation, an entire room that's enchanted with gentle repose that only costs 3000 gp (market price). Totally worth the investment if you're going to try to Palpatine your way to victory.

There was also a Robe of Gentle Repose for 10k in the City of the Spider Queen adventure, which might be worth the extra cost if you need to keep your clone mobile or for some other reason can't keep it stored in an enchanted room.

[newguydude1]

"it makes you younger than when the chunk was taken" rules.

neither does simulacrum. i think we can all agree that a simulacrum doesnt make a younger version of a creature just because it was obtained 10 years ago.

[Doctor Despair]

Why not use Genesis to create a plane with slower time than normal? If you can make a fast-time plane, it should follow that slow-time planes can exist, right?

If you do it by some ridiculous extent (1 second on the plane = 1 year in the real world, or something like that), then the clones should effectively never age, letting you "reset" your age each time you die.

Additionally, if you make some sort of contingent plane-shift effect on each clone (triggering upon them animating, for example), you won't lose valuable real-world time upon animating. Grow the clones off the plane and drop them in. You don't even have to worry about Gentle Repose or anything, as effectively no time passes on the plane.

[Ganorenas]

In Rise of the Runelords there is a Wizard that uses the Clone spell to survive almost 10,000years...

If I am not allowed to quote from published material, please let me know.

As a result, in the thousands of years after Thassilon fell, Vraxeris was the only one of the original runelord apprentices to survive. In other wings, apprentices like Ordikon or Kazaven inherited control, or minions like Delvahine or Athroxis took command. In the Shimmering Veils, Vraxeris retained control. Even after his apprentices died of old age, he remained, for Vraxeris had mastered the art of creating clones. Yet Vraxeris’s skill at cloning himself went beyond even what the spell itself allowed, for each time he aged and died, he was reborn in a fresh, young body. As long as he could maintain his studies and experience (since each clone resulted in a loss of an experience level), Vraxeris was effectively immortal. He hid the secret of his more powerful clone spell jealously, and for nearly 10,000 years he maintained his control here.]

So, he specifically had a special way to do it, which was still flawed.

Vraxeris was nearing the solution for these conundrums when tragedy struck. Always before, he had managed to accumulate enough power to create a new clone before his current body perished. Yet in his efforts to create a portal out of Runeforge, he delayed his advancement just enough that when he was seized with a sudden, unexpected recurrence of the same hereditary dementia responsible for the majority of his previous deaths, he was unprepared. In this growing dementia, he lost the ability to tell the difference between reality and his own illusions. He locked himself in his bedchambers and spent nearly every day clothing himself in illusions of beauty, and staring at himself in his mirror. Eventually, as he had countless times before, the dementia in his brain spread deeper, and as he sat in front of his mirror bedecked in kingly raiment believing that he was a god, he quietly passed away when the basic lifegiving functions of his brain failed. Yet this time, there was no clone waiting to return his soul to life.

Page 45 of Sins of the Saviors.

[Crake]

Even Reincarnate is a little distasteful to me, at least when used for the purpose of just getting a new, young adult body.
Imo an actual druid casting it like that should fall for violating his "revere nature" requirement, but at least it's balanced by having no control over what you come back as.

Personally, I think people don't ever really consider the spirit of the reincarnate spell. The way the spell is worded "A reincarnated creature recalls the majority of its former life and form." seems to imply that, while it recalls it's former life and form, this is in fact a new life, and it's connection to it's previous life would be like a distant memory, or having read someone else's autobiography. The entire previous life should feel one step removed, and each time you reincarnate, the memories of that first life would get blurrier and blurrier until they fade entirely.

As such, when you use reincarnate to become "immortal", you're not really becoming immortal, you're just passing on your memories to the next life.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Personally, I think people don't ever really consider the spirit of the reincarnate spell. The way the spell is worded "A reincarnated creature recalls the majority of its former life and form." seems to imply that, while it recalls it's former life and form, this is in fact a new life, and it's connection to it's previous life would be like a distant memory, or having read someone else's autobiography. The entire previous life should feel one step removed, and each time you reincarnate, the memories of that first life would get blurrier and blurrier until they fade entirely.

As such, when you use reincarnate to become "immortal", you're not really becoming immortal, you're just passing on your memories to the next life.

I always figured that as a bit of fluff regarding the level loss and chance to lose prepared spells or spell slots. Shame on me i guess, after all Raise Dead and Resurrection don't have that part.

It's an interesting interpretation at least. Do you know if there's any official fluff about Reincarnate that would support it?

[Crake]

I always figured that as a bit of fluff regarding the level loss and chance to lose prepared spells or spell slots. Shame on me i guess, after all Raise Dead and Resurrection don't have that part.

It's an interesting interpretation at least. Do you know if there's any official fluff about Reincarnate that would support it?

No official fluff that I'm aware of, but I don't really consume a lot dnd media or play pre-made modules usually. I'm mainly looking at it from a more real-world take on reincarnation, typically when you think of real-world reincarnation and memories of past lives, they're unclear, muddy, and while a spell that lets you retain your memories would clearly make those memories far more vivid and clear, they are still just that, memories of a past life, and thus they wouldn't mean the same to you anymore.

And sure, they're also the only memories you have, but again, I imagine it would be almost like an amnesiac who read their own autobiography, sometimes they carry on with their old life, but other times they simply become someone completely different. Maybe you could maintain memories through a single reincarnation... maybe two? But the more and more you do it, the further and further removed from your first life you'd become.

[KillianHawkeye]

I like that interpretation. It definitely fits better with real world beliefs about reincarnation.

[noob]

I wouldn't allow it because it would make lichdom (and similar forms of immortality) make even less sense than they already do.
Old age is supposed to be a hard limit to using the more palatable forms of resurrection for immortality and i like it that way.

Even Reincarnate is a little distasteful to me, at least when used for the purpose of just getting a new, young adult body.
Imo an actual druid casting it like that should fall for violating his "revere nature" requirement, but at least it's balanced by having no control over what you come back as.


Probably something like putting on a bit of weight and cutting out some of your belly fat? There's spells and poisons that suppress pain, so that shouldn't be an issue.
If you don't mind scarring you probably don't even need a cleric, a simple CLW potion should suffice.
You could even stitch it closed and let it heal naturally, but why would you do that if you don't have to?
Nature is not at all about the irreversibility of things nor about the necessary temporality of things.
It is just a term used to regroup a collection of things living, dead and inanimate.
This is why there is such druid variety from druids that goes and burns everything that does not fits their overly strict vision to druid which thinks "I do not care about whenever it makes sense only that it is efficient to get what I want because it is the fundamental way living creature works" and then cast reincarnation and are also the kind of druid which considers that if piles of gold makes them happy that they should try to get them: it is a valid interpretation of how life works and fits more the instinctual part of living creatures.
None of them are wrong.
But it is why there is druid spells for nearly everything because druids have countless visions of the things.

[Segev]

If reincarnate makes you not-you anymore, why would any spirit return to it? What good is it that makes it worth casting if you're not getting your friend or loved-one back?

[noob]

If reincarnate makes you not-you anymore, why would any spirit return to it? What good is it that makes it worth casting if you're not getting your friend or loved-one back?

It makes someone with a whole bunch of class levels and have all the reasons to be in your team.

[Crake]

If reincarnate makes you not-you anymore, why would any spirit return to it? What good is it that makes it worth casting if you're not getting your friend or loved-one back?

Coming back in a new incarnation to continue fighting the evil that plagues the land is a pretty common trope (and is literally the basis of an entire game series (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Legend_of_Zelda)).

[Segev]

It makes someone with a whole bunch of class levels and have all the reasons to be in your team.Does it, though? I mean, if he's not your party member, why does he feel obligated to continue your quest rather than go retire, or find some new meaning in his new life?

Alternatively, if he is that devoted to your cause, are you sure he's not the same person? What is it that makes him disconnected from his previous life, but still connected enough to care to fight on for that person he has memories "as if he read about their life" cared about?


Coming back in a new incarnation to continue fighting the evil that plagues the land is a pretty common trope (and is literally the basis of an entire game series (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Legend_of_Zelda)).Each of the Links and Zeldas have their own motives for doing things. There's even muddiness over whether they ARE the same person reincarnated every time, what with the possibility that the trainer stalfos in Twilight Princess might be a previous Link. But assuming they are the same two people continuously reincarnated, they still aren't motivated by their past lives. They're motivated by their current lives and struggles.

You wouldn't reincarnate Link after he died right then and there and expect him to care about things without having grown up to it the way the previous Link did.

[KillianHawkeye]

Coming back in a new incarnation to continue fighting the evil that plagues the land is a pretty common trope (and is literally the basis of an entire game series (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Legend_of_Zelda)).

You can kind of say that in retrospect, but it wasn't the original premise of the series and hasn't been the focus of it in game, either. Most of the Links and Zeldas know nothing about their past or future "incarnations". Wind Waker Link was probably the closest one, and even he was just wearing the traditional clothes of a hero, not knowing that past heroes were also named Link.

For sure none of the Links remembered any of their "past lives", they were just doing what they needed to do as the heroes of their time. The fact that all of the heroes of Hyrule have been green clad boys named Link is at most a cosmic coincidence.

[Crake]

You can kind of say that in retrospect, but it wasn't the original premise of the series and hasn't been the focus of it in game, either. Most of the Links and Zeldas know nothing about their past or future "incarnations". Wind Waker Link was probably the closest one, and even he was just wearing the traditional clothes of a hero, not knowing that past heroes were also named Link.

For sure none of the Links remembered any of their "past lives", they were just doing what they needed to do as the heroes of their time. The fact that all of the heroes of Hyrule have been green clad boys named Link is at most a cosmic coincidence.

I mean, that's just straight up not true. Skyward sword established that the incarnations were actually the same soul for link, zelda and demise, curse to an eternity of clashes and conflict. Twilight princess has that link meeting a previous incarnation which many believe to be the hero of time, breath of the wild is filled to the brim of acknowledgements of the hero reincarnating, especially with the master sword's connection to link and Fi's theme.

[Drelua]

You can kind of say that in retrospect, but it wasn't the original premise of the series and hasn't been the focus of it in game, either. Most of the Links and Zeldas know nothing about their past or future "incarnations". Wind Waker Link was probably the closest one, and even he was just wearing the traditional clothes of a hero, not knowing that past heroes were also named Link.

For sure none of the Links remembered any of their "past lives", they were just doing what they needed to do as the heroes of their time. The fact that all of the heroes of Hyrule have been green clad boys named Link is at most a cosmic coincidence.

Played Wind Waker not long ago, 'Link' in that game isn't actually named Link. He's named whatever the player chooses to name him, which could be Link but isn't necessarily. Unless his canonical name is Link, I'm not the biggest Zelda fan so I could be wrong. Did play BotW though, that was pretty clear on at least Ganon being continuously reincarnated. There was something at the end about him taking a more powerful form, but giving up his ability to be reincarnated, allowing him to be defeated for the last time.

Anyway, closer to the point of the thread, I do use the reincarnate spell a fair bit. When I GM it's a lower level world, not quite E6 but still at the point where even a level 10 character is very rare, so the druids are the only group that reliably has the power to bring someone back from death. They won't do it for just anyone, you need a good reason, like destroying a lich or some other creature druids aren't fond of, or the person being brought back was a friend to them that died prematurely/unnaturally would do it. Considering how much of my life I don't remember, I don't see "recalls the majority of its former life and form" as much of a restriction. If it was something like 'retains the majority of its memories' it would be different, but remembering most of your life is probably more than I can say I do now, and I'm still fairly young. That may be a bit of a pedantic/rules lawyery interpretation though. Still, I feel like remembering most of a life and not having any other memories, you'd still want to be around the people you knew before, assuming you were part of a group that had been adventuring together for a while, and you'd still be a very similar person, if not exactly the same.

I do see it as something they won't do lightly, druids just bringing back whoever has 1000 gold doesn't sit well with me, and they'd be very hesitant to create a scroll that could be used on anyone. Still, I think coming back in a random body is plenty drawback to balance it out. Although I did have a character whose height I rolled for, he was 5'4" and not happy about it. Then he died and got reincarnated as a half-orc, rolled high for his height so that worked out pretty well for him. Got lucky there, could have just as easily been a gnome.

[noob]

Played Wind Waker not long ago, 'Link' in that game isn't actually named Link. He's named whatever the player chooses to name him, which could be Link but isn't necessarily. Unless his canonical name is Link, I'm not the biggest Zelda fan so I could be wrong. Did play BotW though, that was pretty clear on at least Ganon being continuously reincarnated. There was something at the end about him taking a more powerful form, but giving up his ability to be reincarnated, allowing him to be defeated for the last time.

Anyway, closer to the point of the thread, I do use the reincarnate spell a fair bit. When I GM it's a lower level world, not quite E6 but still at the point where even a level 10 character is very rare, so the druids are the only group that reliably has the power to bring someone back from death. They won't do it for just anyone, you need a good reason, like destroying a lich or some other creature druids aren't fond of, or the person being brought back was a friend to them that died prematurely/unnaturally would do it. Considering how much of my life I don't remember, I don't see "recalls the majority of its former life and form" as much of a restriction. If it was something like 'retains the majority of its memories' it would be different, but remembering most of your life is probably more than I can say I do now, and I'm still fairly young. That may be a bit of a pedantic/rules lawyery interpretation though. Still, I feel like remembering most of a life and not having any other memories, you'd still want to be around the people you knew before, assuming you were part of a group that had been adventuring together for a while, and you'd still be a very similar person, if not exactly the same.

I do see it as something they won't do lightly, druids just bringing back whoever has 1000 gold doesn't sit well with me, and they'd be very hesitant to create a scroll that could be used on anyone. Still, I think coming back in a random body is plenty drawback to balance it out. Although I did have a character whose height I rolled for, he was 5'4" and not happy about it. Then he died and got reincarnated as a half-orc, rolled high for his height so that worked out pretty well for him. Got lucky there, could have just as easily been a gnome.

I think it depends on the druid group.
Imagine a barbaric tribe of druids raised in the hash conditions of fighting for survival that follows their instinct.
Those thinks that the fundamental nature of living creatures is to be beasts doing what they can to get what they want would probably reincarnate whoever gives them something that they want(ex: a pile of gold and food or magical items).
But the stereotypical balance druid who in fact did spend most of their time living in a city and pretend to like nature and never saw an animal eat another will probably think "It is the worst thing ever to break the completely fictional and imagined concept of balance".
Of course the latter group is way more represented because druids of the former group have a lower survival rate and does not recruits massively in towns.
Hence why people think that balance druids and the druids of the cycle and other similar people who are dependant on the modern society and worship their own inefficient for survival things are all the druids: the savage druids are both less common and harder to find.

[Crake]

Played Wind Waker not long ago, 'Link' in that game isn't actually named Link. He's named whatever the player chooses to name him, which could be Link but isn't necessarily. Unless his canonical name is Link, I'm not the biggest Zelda fan so I could be wrong. Did play BotW though, that was pretty clear on at least Ganon being continuously reincarnated. There was something at the end about him taking a more powerful form, but giving up his ability to be reincarnated, allowing him to be defeated for the last time.

That's the case in all zelda games, you can choose whatever name you like, but canonically, they're all called Link.

Also, regarding the end of BotW, it was that he had given up on THIS reincarnation, not reincarnation in general, he's still forever stuck in that cycle.


Anyway, closer to the point of the thread, I do use the reincarnate spell a fair bit. When I GM it's a lower level world, not quite E6 but still at the point where even a level 10 character is very rare, so the druids are the only group that reliably has the power to bring someone back from death. They won't do it for just anyone, you need a good reason, like destroying a lich or some other creature druids aren't fond of, or the person being brought back was a friend to them that died prematurely/unnaturally would do it. Considering how much of my life I don't remember, I don't see "recalls the majority of its former life and form" as much of a restriction. If it was something like 'retains the majority of its memories' it would be different, but remembering most of your life is probably more than I can say I do now, and I'm still fairly young. That may be a bit of a pedantic/rules lawyery interpretation though. Still, I feel like remembering most of a life and not having any other memories, you'd still want to be around the people you knew before, assuming you were part of a group that had been adventuring together for a while, and you'd still be a very similar person, if not exactly the same.

For sure, yeah, in the context of a single campaign, I was more referring to the idea of using reincarnate repeatedly, over hundreds, or even thousands of years as a way of becoming "immortal".


I think it depends on the druid group.
Imagine a barbaric tribe of druids raised in the hash conditions of fighting for survival that follows their instinct.
Those thinks that the fundamental nature of living creatures is to be beasts doing what they can to get what they want would probably reincarnate whoever gives them something that they want(ex: a pile of gold and food or magical items).
But the stereotypical balance druid who in fact did spend most of their time living in a city and pretend to like nature and never saw an animal eat another will probably think "It is the worst thing ever to break the completely fictional and imagined concept of balance".
Of course the latter group is way more represented because druids of the former group have a lower survival rate and does not recruits massively in towns.
Hence why people think that balance druids and the druids of the cycle and other similar people who are dependant on the modern society and worship their own inefficient for survival things are all the druids: the savage druids are both less common and harder to find.

I mean, I also think "savage" druids would be far less interested in material wealth, and consider the sorts of people who try to "buy" their services as weaklings. You'd do far better by trying to earn their respect and gain a favour, than you would just throwing money at them.

[noob]

That's the case in all zelda games, you can choose whatever name you like, but canonically, they're all called Link.

Also, regarding the end of BotW, it was that he had given up on THIS reincarnation, not reincarnation in general, he's still forever stuck in that cycle.



For sure, yeah, in the context of a single campaign, I was more referring to the idea of using reincarnate repeatedly, over hundreds, or even thousands of years as a way of becoming "immortal".



I mean, I also think "savage" druids would be far less interested in material wealth, and consider the sorts of people who try to "buy" their services as weaklings. You'd do far better by trying to earn their respect and gain a favour, than you would just throwing money at them.

Magic items makes them more likely to survive.
I am pretty sure a wildshape clasp and a +6 str belt would be appreciated by them.
That or a pearl of thaumaturgy of their high level slots.
And gold can be used for creating such things due to magic item creation rules being idiotic and not needing anything else than piles of gold and xp + a feat(of which epic level E6 characters have so many they do not know what to do with them).
I think directly giving them a magical item that benefits them would generally be preferred.

You can also just beat them up in submission if you are strong enough (but that is probably a very hard adventure to pursue druids that uses all the survival tricks to deter or kill pursuers in the wild in order to beat them up and that is if you are actually strong enough to beat them in a regular fight: if you can not then you just get killed).

Also if you plan to pay them you must be strong enough to stop them from taking what you were planning to pay through force.(else they leave with the payment and you have nothing)

So yes it is complicated to get something from this kind of druid.

[Seto]

How likely would you, as a DM, be to consider the clones as being at the age the body was when the bit of flesh was taken,
I mean... It's not written that way, but sure, why not, it makes sense and makes for cool roleplay. My campaign ain't gonna span generations anyway.
Actually, from the NPC side, it could be a cool idea for a villain. Defeating an old, crippled mage early on and then as the BBEG having to face their Clone prepared long ago, who has no idea what happened, what were his original self's plans and how he died.


and how generous would you be to the 2d4 months being interrupted early to produce a clone significantly younger than the final growth state?
I wouldn't allow it. It reeks of trying to circumvent the limits of the spell to make it work for the caster in a way that's contrary to the process of the spell (or how I interpret it anyway). The length of development is supposed to be a disadvantage of the spell. If something happens to interrupt the development of the clone, it's supposed to be a setback, not work in your favor. Mind you, if it was interesting and, in the case of a PC, if the player was on board with it, I could see allowing the Clone to function with an insufficient gestation time. But it wouldn't be younger, it would be... incomplete somehow. Or deformed. Something gone horribly wrong. Think Fulllmetal Alchimist when human alchemy goes awry.

EDIT: Actually, hold that thought. I realized I wasn't being clear, so I went back to add a clarification. The way I would like Clone to work (clearly not RAW) - the way that makes sense to me and that I would probably enforce for my NPCs (such as my villain idea) is that it creates an identical copy of who you were at the moment you took the flesh. So, yes, the same age - but also the same mind, knowledge, the same experience and level. It doesn't matter if you were a level 25 Wizard when you died ; your flesh is from when you were level 15, so your new self is level 15 and has no idea what happened during the last 35 years.
Now, that spell is clearly ****ty in the context of PC use, and it's different enough from the real Clone that it's functionally a different spell altogether. I might consider it a variant of Clone, and allow any character, PC or NPC, the choice at the moment of casting: either you want to preserve who you were at the moment of casting, which allows you to stay young eternally, but you lose all that happened between the casting and death; or you want to preserve who you were at the moment of death, but in that case we're playing it RAW and it functions as Raise Dead - no new youth.

[rel]

By RAW, I don't think it works but clone in 3.5 wasn't so much written as copy pasta'd from an earlier edition so its hard to be sure.

As a GM, I'd allow preserving flesh from your young body + clone to work as a means of delaying old age.
I can see it leading to some interesting adventures like raid the evil wizards lab dungeon and destroy his youth samples or go retrieve the wizards youth samples from his rivals lab dungeon.

As for modifying the spell ritual to create a younger body from whole cloth, again, I'll allow it with two caveats.

1) The modifications are not guaranteed and come with the chance of something going horribly wrong, hopefully leading to an Akira style boss monster fight or a wizard with an overpowered final form.

2) Any game where wizards can get up to those kind of shenanigans should also allow muggles to get up to similar shenanigans through non-magical means

[Segev]

Had a thought that sparked a further question.

You cast Clone and grow a spare body, and between the casting and the 2d4 months’ growing time, you die and are brought back with Reincarnation. As a race other than you had before, as is usually the case. (Say you were an elf before and are now a bugbear.)

Nevertheless, you preserve the clone of your elven body for some time.

Later, you get killed again. Does your clone rise as a bugbear or an elf?

[noob]

Had a thought that sparked a further question.

You cast Clone and grow a spare body, and between the casting and the 2d4 months’ growing time, you die and are brought back with Reincarnation. As a race other than you had before, as is usually the case. (Say you were an elf before and are now a bugbear.)

Nevertheless, you preserve the clone of your elven body for some time.

Later, you get killed again. Does your clone rise as a bugbear or an elf?

it does not raise according to srd (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/clone.htm)



When the clone is completed, the original’s soul enters it immediately, if that creature is already dead. The clone is physically identical with the original and possesses the same personality and memories as the original. In other respects, treat the clone as if it were the original character raised from the dead, including the loss of one level or 2 points of Constitution (if the original was a 1st-level character). If this Constitution adjustment would give the clone a Constitution score of 0, the spell fails. If the original creature has lost levels since the flesh sample was taken and died at a lower level than the clone would otherwise be, the clone is one level below the level at which the original died.

So it works as if the original was just raised from the dead when you cast the spell.

But if the creature is already living:


A duplicate can be grown while the original still lives, or when the original soul is unavailable, but the resulting body is merely a soulless bit of inert flesh, which rots if not preserved.

So according to the current text of clone in the srd clone is just a variant of resurrect that can also make inert corpses that does nothing at all and no longer some sort of alternate phylactery.
the text that can makes you think it would make some sort of phylactery is this:


This spell makes an inert duplicate of a creature. If the original individual has been slain, its soul immediately transfers to the clone, creating a replacement (provided that the soul is free and willing to return)
Except they say "if the original has been slain" so it works only if the original was already dead by the time you cast clone.

Yes the srd nerfed hard the spell relatively to the last version you did read.
And that is not the only change SRD did to the rules.

But if someone took your elf flesh and did cast clone after your bugbear self did die it would make a bugbear from elf flesh.(and scared townsfolks forms a mob and wants to kill that person for the atrocities they are doing in their laboratory)

[sleepyphoenixx]

Except they say "if the original has been slain" so it works only if the original was already dead by the time you cast clone.

Yes the srd nerfed hard the spell relatively to the last version you did read.
And that is not the only change SRD did to the rules.

Only if you deliberately misinterpret the second sentence of the spell description to ignore the obvious intention.
"If the original has been slain its soul will transfer to the clone" (as long as the clone exists and is preserved) is just as valid a reading of the spell description.

[Doctor Despair]

I suppose if you could somehow eliminate the costs of Clone entirely, you could negate the concern raised above (about it only creating inert corpses if the subject is alive at the time of growth) by casting it once each day. If you ever die, the clone that completes the next day will immediately have your soul transfer to it, right?

[Segev]

it does not raise according to srd (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/clone.htm)

While I follow this argument, I reject it on the basis that context makes it clear that the inert body only remains inert until the soul is available to inhabit it. If a DM wants to run it as you interpret, fine, but for this discussion's sake, let's operate on the notion that the inert flesh can quicken if not rotted by the time the creature dies/the creature's soul becomes available.

Let's construct this in away that should avoid the question, though:

You're an elf. Your necromancer buddy takes a chunk of flesh from you and preserves it. You die later on, and, before your necromancer buddy hears about it, you're reincarnated by your druid ally, coming back as a bugbear.

Some time later, you die in your bugbear body, and your necromancer friend hears about it and pulls out the elfmeat chunk and casts clone. 2d4 months later, you wake up in the clone-grown body as if you'd been the target of raise dead. We know this by the RAW.

Are you an elf, or are you a bugbear?



If we assume that "inert flesh" clone-bodies can be preserved until the spirit becomes available, and you did in fact die and reincarnate as a bugbear during a 2d4 month growth period for your clone-body, so now there's a preserved clone body grown from your elven flesh while you're a living bugbear. If you later die and wake up in the body, are you a bugbear or an elf?

[noob]

While I follow this argument, I reject it on the basis that context makes it clear that the inert body only remains inert until the soul is available to inhabit it. If a DM wants to run it as you interpret, fine, but for this discussion's sake, let's operate on the notion that the inert flesh can quicken if not rotted by the time the creature dies/the creature's soul becomes available.

Let's construct this in away that should avoid the question, though:

You're an elf. Your necromancer buddy takes a chunk of flesh from you and preserves it. You die later on, and, before your necromancer buddy hears about it, you're reincarnated by your druid ally, coming back as a bugbear.

Some time later, you die in your bugbear body, and your necromancer friend hears about it and pulls out the elfmeat chunk and casts clone. 2d4 months later, you wake up in the clone-grown body as if you'd been the target of raise dead. We know this by the RAW.

Are you an elf, or are you a bugbear?



If we assume that "inert flesh" clone-bodies can be preserved until the spirit becomes available, and you did in fact die and reincarnate as a bugbear during a 2d4 month growth period for your clone-body, so now there's a preserved clone body grown from your elven flesh while you're a living bugbear. If you later die and wake up in the body, are you a bugbear or an elf?

You are a bugbear because it is "as if you were targeted by raise dead" and raise dead makes you be whatever you were before death.
So the soul goes into an elf clone and "poof suddenly bugbear".
Yes it is probably a raw dysfunction and probably not what clone should do.

[sleepyphoenixx]

If we assume that "inert flesh" clone-bodies can be preserved until the spirit becomes available, and you did in fact die and reincarnate as a bugbear during a 2d4 month growth period for your clone-body, so now there's a preserved clone body grown from your elven flesh while you're a living bugbear. If you later die and wake up in the body, are you a bugbear or an elf?

There's always the option of not waking up at all because it was no longer your flesh.

If you wake up at all i'd like to say elf (because it makes sense), but RAW it's "as Raise Dead", and someone reincarnated as a bugbear gets raised as a bugbear, not as an elf.

[rel]

Had a thought that sparked a further question.

You cast Clone and grow a spare body, and between the casting and the 2d4 months’ growing time, you die and are brought back with Reincarnation. As a race other than you had before, as is usually the case. (Say you were an elf before and are now a bugbear.)

Nevertheless, you preserve the clone of your elven body for some time.

Later, you get killed again. Does your clone rise as a bugbear or an elf?

Elf makes sense. Rule it that way.

[Feldar]

The spell creates a duplicate body that brings back an already-dead character provided he isn’t dead of old age. It requires a chunk of flesh from the original, and takes 2d4 months to grow. It can be preserved with other magic if the character yet lives, and revive the character at the moment of his death.

In earlier editions, the spell had text (assuming my memory serves me) that said something about coming back as the character was when the flesh was taken (though if taken from a corpse before rot set in it still came back alive). In 5e, the spell explicitly let’s you set the Clone’s age to any that is no older than the original was when you removed the flesh chunk.

Nothing is stated in 3.5 or PF1 about this, though it mentions taking 2d4 months to grow in a lab.

How likely would you, as a DM, be to consider the clones as being at the age the body was when the bit of flesh was taken, and how generous would you be to the 2d4 months being interrupted early to produce a clone significantly younger than the final growth state?



As a GM, I would allow the character to have a clone created early and then not update it for decades so that when the character died of old age the clone would come back young. Of course, this would mean that the character needed to advance again....

[Segev]

As a GM, I would allow the character to have a clone created early and then not update it for decades so that when the character died of old age the clone would come back young. Of course, this would mean that the character needed to advance again....

From a narrative standpoint, there's one question to answer that determines whether this is better than the alternative to the character doing it: even if he's back to whatever level he was when the clone was made, does he have all of his lifetime of memories, or is he going to wake up and only be able to hear about his amazing life from his now-old friends who weren't so old when his last memory - of having a chunk of flesh cut out - happened?

[Feldar]

From a narrative standpoint, there's one question to answer that determines whether this is better than the alternative to the character doing it: even if he's back to whatever level he was when the clone was made, does he have all of his lifetime of memories, or is he going to wake up and only be able to hear about his amazing life from his now-old friends who weren't so old when his last memory - of having a chunk of flesh cut out - happened?

The first time you levelled you did it the hard way. This time you have the opportunity to leave your younger self gear, full sets of spellbooks, journals, notes, cash, and other wealth.

Having no memory (remember you did not update the clone, so how could it possibly have the memories?) is a small price to pay for what is essentially a path to eternal life. Besides, I did mention you could leave yourself journals, right?

[Segev]

The first time you levelled you did it the hard way. This time you have the opportunity to leave your younger self gear, full sets of spellbooks, journals, notes, cash, and other wealth.

Having no memory (remember you did not update the clone, so how could it possibly have the memories?) is a small price to pay for what is essentially a path to eternal life. Besides, I did mention you could leave yourself journals, right?

Serial amnesia and only remembering a single life - one that suddenly loses all its friends for a bunch of strangers who claim to know you - and knowing that you'll lose it all again as you near old age... it'd feel a lot like death.

[Feldar]

Serial amnesia and only remembering a single life - one that suddenly loses all its friends for a bunch of strangers who claim to know you - and knowing that you'll lose it all again as you near old age... it'd feel a lot like death.

TANSTAAFL

(If you haven't read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (SHAME ON YOU!), that means "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.")

Besides, there are simple ways of dealing with your concern -- after your second life, you'll have accumulated enough wealth that you can continually bring new people of varying ages into your life to provide some continuity and alleviate the loneliness. Over the eons, you'll get better and better at documenting your life via journals that you leave your future self.

[Segev]

TANSTAAFL

(If you haven't read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (SHAME ON YOU!), that means "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.")

Besides, there are simple ways of dealing with your concern -- after your second life, you'll have accumulated enough wealth that you can continually bring new people of varying ages into your life to provide some continuity and alleviate the loneliness. Over the eons, you'll get better and better at documenting your life via journals that you leave your future self.

It's mainly a question of, after the first time... would you really look back at the single life you remember, and think, "I want a do-over from now, without remembering any of this?"

Or is the pain of losing everything except material wealth, and having to get to know people who claim to be your friends, something you'll want to re-live, especially knowing that you won't be prepared for it...again...because all you'll remember when you wake up is what you remembered when waking up this time?

Also, weird sensation to wake up for the first time and learn it's really the 10th or the 90th or the millionth.

Great for plots involving enemies getting ahold of your clone and telling you they're your friends and turning you against your last life's allies, though.

Also a wonderful excuse to pick up Mind Seed: use that on your clone when it wakes up, and problems are solved. It probably won't even be traumatic or concerning, because you're overwriting an old version of yourself, so you're really just giving him the memories he lost.

[CIDE]

As interesting as the concept is of losing all post-clone memories (and levels) it's an issue solved with a single thought bottle.

[Feldar]

As interesting as the concept is of losing all post-clone memories (and levels) it's an issue solved with a single thought bottle.

Assumes facts not in evidence! What if said item is not available in the campaign?

What if the supplies left for yourself got stolen and you woke up with nothing? Time to think in memory continuity terms -- what's your backup plan?