Simulacrum

[adb82]

One thing i still dont get about simulacrum:
can the simulacrum cast simulacrum copying my character? Its not considered as im the caster? (it would be totally broke, i dont have any intention to become a sort of new rick sanchez and create a simulacrum army lol, im just curious to know if its RAW to do something like this, bcs i found nothing in the spell saying it cant and it looks kinda weird, as it mean i can theoretically create infinity simulacrum lol and the spell seem clearly intented for make me get only one simulacrum for time).

And also, it supposed to dont REGAIN spell slots, but can he RECOVER them with arcane recovery? As it should have the ability being my copy with halved hp, while "regain" and "recover" seem were intentionally used with 2 different meanings, so that made me think this way.

[Keravath]

1) RAW, an infinite simulacrum army is a known issue and most DMs simply house rule that it is not possible.

So the first thing to do is ask your DM. I don't allow it in any game I run. I just house rule that if a simulacrum casts simulacrum it counts as the original caster casting it again and the simulacrum is replaced so that any specific caster can only have one simulacrum under their control at a time.

If allowed, the classic way to do this is to have a 17+ level wizard expend a 7th level slot creating a simulacrum of themselves. This simulacrum is then lacking one 7th level spell slot when created. The simulacrum can then use another spell slot to create another simulacrum of the original wizard. Alternatively, and much cheaper but at greater cost in spell slots, they can use Wish (and a 9th level slot) to instantly create another duplicate of the original wizard. The new simulacrum can then do the same and within a few minutes you could have an infinite number of duplicates of the original wizard. I think that is allowed by RAW.

2) "nor can it regain expended spell slots." Given the wording and context, I think the intent is that the simulacrum can never restore expended spell slots. As DM, I would rule regain vs recover is exactly the same thing in this context.

You might find someone who would disagree but I think they would be few and far between. However, that said, allowing a simulacrum to use arcane recovery 1/day is unlikely to break the game any more than simulacrum already does.

In addition, arcane recovery also uses the word "regain" as well as "recover".

"You have learned to regain some of your magical energy by studying your spellbook. Once per day when you finish a short rest, you can choose expended spell slots to recover."

So, I would think a definite no on a simulacrum using arcane recovery.

[Kwinza]

I think the main point in favor of a sim being able to use arcane recovery is that it’s the only time the word “recover” is used in regards to spell slots in the entire book. Every single other place that restoring spell slots is mentioned they use “regain”.

So since Sim states it can’t “regain” spells and arcane recovery states you “recover” spells. I’d rule that the Sim can use it by RAW.

Remember that Wizards are very specific with there use of terminology. Look at attack and attack action.

[Keravath]

I think the main point in favor of a sim being able to use arcane recovery is that it’s the only time the word “recover” is used in regards to spell slots in the entire book. Every single other place that restoring spell slots is mentioned they use “regain”.

So since Sim states it can’t “regain” spells and arcane recovery states you “recover” spells. I’d rule that the Sim can use it by RAW.

Remember that Wizards are very specific with there use of terminology. Look at attack and attack action.

Except as pointed out ... arcane recovery is described as both "regain" and "recover" leaving this to very much be a DM call especially since the 5e rules are supposed to be written in plain English where "regain" and "recover" could be considered synonymous in this context. So definitely a DM call since I would say the RAW is not at all clear on it.

[Kwinza]

Except as pointed out ... arcane recovery is described as both "regain" and "recover" leaving this to very much be a DM call especially since the 5e rules are supposed to be written in plain English where "regain" and "recover" could be considered synonymous in this context. So definitely a DM call since I would say the RAW is not at all clear on it.

The flavour text has has "regain" in it.
The ability text has "recover" in it.

Again, its the only spell restore text in the entire game that uses "recover" instead of "regain" in the ability text.

You have learned to regain some of your magical energy by studying your spellbook.<< Flavour
Once per day when you finish a short rest, you can choose expended spell slots to recover.<< What the ability does.

[heavyfuel]

The flavour text has has "regain" in it.
The ability text has "recover" in it.

This isn't Magic: The Gathering. D&D makes no diferentiation between "flavor text" and "ability text". Text that is in a rulebook is "rules text".

[Kwinza]

This isn't Magic: The Gathering. D&D makes no diferentiation between "flavor text" and "ability text". Text that is in a rulebook is "rules text".

Read the ability.
One sentence has 0 mechanical effect and one sentence does.
If that's not ability text and flavour text, what the hell is?

[heavyfuel]

Read the ability.
One sentence has 0 mechanical effect and one sentence does.
If that's not ability text and flavour text, what the hell is?

They're both rules text, ie, text that is written on a rulebook. Unless you can point out an explicit diferentiation between "flavor text" and "ability text" (like the one MtG has), then the obvious answer is that both sentences are equally as valid when it comes to Rules as Written.

[Dork_Forge]

I think the main point in favor of a sim being able to use arcane recovery is that it’s the only time the word “recover” is used in regards to spell slots in the entire book. Every single other place that restoring spell slots is mentioned they use “regain”.

So since Sim states it can’t “regain” spells and arcane recovery states you “recover” spells. I’d rule that the Sim can use it by RAW.

Remember that Wizards are very specific with there use of terminology. Look at attack and attack action.

As others have said, there's no line between fluff and crunch, if it's under the ability heading then it's rules text.

You seem to be saying that it was the intention that the Simulacrum should be able to recorver slots with Arcane Recovery with your last sentence. I remember seeing a post/quote from Crawford at one point saying that RAW it's spell slots but the intention was that the Simulacrum couldn't recover any resources (including say, Action Surge).

Personally I don't think it's RAW or RAI or balanced to let a Simulacrum benefit from Arcane Recovery.

[Kwinza]

They're both rules text, ie, text that is written on a rulebook. Unless you can point out an explicit diferentiation between "flavor text" and "ability text" (like the one MtG has), then the obvious answer is that both sentences are equally as valid when it comes to Rules as Written.

The PHB has loads of text that just for flavour...

[heavyfuel]

The PHB has loads of text that just for flavour...

It certainly has loads of rules text with no mechanical effect attached, but rules text they still are. This is especially true when one such line of rules text uses the same verb as another (in this case, the verb "regain" in both the rules text for Arcane Recovery and Simulacrum)

[WaroftheCrans]

I think the main point in favor of a sim being able to use arcane recovery is that it’s the only time the word “recover” is used in regards to spell slots in the entire book. Every single other place that restoring spell slots is mentioned they use “regain”.

So since Sim states it can’t “regain” spells and arcane recovery states you “recover” spells. I’d rule that the Sim can use it by RAW.

Remember that Wizards are very specific with there use of terminology. Look at attack and attack action.

Everything in this post is wrong.
Arcane Recovery is not the only ability to use that verbiage, at the very least Natural Recovery uses that as well, and likely other sources do as well. In addition the rules text of Arcane Recovery do use regain to describe the process. Further, the Arcane Grimoire has a feature that augments Arcane Recovery and only uses the term regain.
Wizards of the Coast is not very specific in their use of language and in DnD in particular they have been notoriously vague and inconsistent.
5e RAW is predicated on the concept of "simple English" to determine meaning. In simple English regain and recover are synonymous for their uses here.

If regainery rolled off the tongue or dictionary better I'd be willing to bet that they would have used that for both Arcane and Natural Recovery instead.

Raw Arcane Recovery can not cause a simulacrum to regain spell slots.

[Segev]

Again, this is all very much DM-call territory.

The narrative purpose of simulacra is to have Doom Bots running around, or to have wizard-made doppelgangers. To this end, having them have the appropriate powers to fill their role convincingly is important. But this is powerful and easily abused, so every edition has tried to limit it in some way. I think 3e and earlier did it better, with the "half the original's level" thing making it so that the simulacrum is often less relevant than the party. It wasn't perfect, with a number of exploits, but it worked more smoothly than "cannot recover resources but is just as powerful as the original when created."

Ideally, mechanics for them would impose some sort of limit that prevents the simulacrum from being useful in hanging out with the party for extended periods of time. They would be useful catspaws, but not useful henchmen and servitors.

Alternatively, they would ideally have an ongoing cost commensurate with the ongoing power they provide.

[Sigreid]

I think a lot of these discussions overlook one thing. It costs a lot for a simulacrum to create another one. To do even a few you're talking about a lot of money to create what is essentially a stack of spell scrolls that cast themselves and can be killed. Yes, you can set up to completely face roll an encounter, but unless you have a large number of magic items for them to use lying around this isn't a create an empire spell.

[Segev]

I think a lot of these discussions overlook one thing. It costs a lot for a simulacrum to create another one. To do even a few you're talking about a lot of money to create what is essentially a stack of spell scrolls that cast themselves and can be killed. Yes, you can set up to completely face roll an encounter, but unless you have a large number of magic items for them to use lying around this isn't a create an empire spell.

It's a bit less costly when you can use a 9th level wish to do it, but yes, you're right, otherwise. It is expensive.

The biggest counterargument to that that I've heard is that PCs in 5e have so little to spend money on, and the material component for simulacrum is way, way cheaper than the equivalent stack of spell scrolls would be (even leaving aside that these, as you note, cast themselves).

[Sigreid]

It's a bit less costly when you can use a 9th level wish to do it, but yes, you're right, otherwise. It is expensive.

The biggest counterargument to that that I've heard is that PCs in 5e have so little to spend money on, and the material component for simulacrum is way, way cheaper than the equivalent stack of spell scrolls would be (even leaving aside that these, as you note, cast themselves).

But, unless you are talking about with epic feats, only every other simulacrum can use wish to do it.

[Segev]

But, unless you are talking about with epic feats, only every other simulacrum can use wish to do it.

Not if you have two wizards doing this stunt together. Yes, that increases the power level threshold, but it's hardly insurmountable.

Also, doesn't address that a stack of spell scrolls equivalent to "one wizard, minus the spell slot used to cast simulacrum," would be way more than the material component cost, anyway.

The spell is just one that sadly requires a gentleman's agreement to use it in the "narratively appropriate" fashion rather than in the brazenly optimal one. (Writing it to only work for the narratively-appropriate fashion is...going to be very hard.)

[Sigreid]

Not if you have two wizards doing this stunt together. Yes, that increases the power level threshold, but it's hardly insurmountable.

Also, doesn't address that a stack of spell scrolls equivalent to "one wizard, minus the spell slot used to cast simulacrum," would be way more than the material component cost, anyway.

The spell is just one that sadly requires a gentleman's agreement to use it in the "narratively appropriate" fashion rather than in the brazenly optimal one. (Writing it to only work for the narratively-appropriate fashion is...going to be very hard.)

Yeah, there are a few stunts that could be done by the rules that I stop by telling the player "Don't be a (censored)"

[Willie the Duck]

To the OP, yes Simulacrum is a spell ripe for abuse. Simulacrum+Wish being a nigh-infinite* wish loop that got noticed within days of the game seeing print. My take is that the designers deliberately made this editions infinite* wish loop exceedingly easy to find so that every group would find it, every DM ban it, and the whole thing be out of the way so people could then get on with playing the game (Kinda like how Alfred Hitchcock had to start putting his cameo earlier in his movies so that people would stop looking for him and watch that film). Whether and how much of the rest of the abuses were realized is unclear. There are a number of spells** that D&D has been saddled with from previous editions (where the counterbalances were 'okay, but it'll take you years to get to that level,' and, 'by the time your wizard can do that, the fighter is running a small nation') that just never work out (either too powerful, or they nerf it to unusability for fear of that power), and this is one of them.
*assuming at that level that the material components for Simulacrum are relatively cheap
**among other things. Monsters and Magic Items have the same issue (think: Spheres of Annihilation and the Tarrasque


Read the ability.
One sentence has 0 mechanical effect and one sentence does.
If that's not ability text and flavour text, what the hell is?


The PHB has loads of text that just for flavour...

Let's try this one more time.
This. Is. Not. A. Distinction. That. Exists. In. D&D. 5E.
If the rulebook book says it, it is part of the ruleset. Where there are contradictions, or room for interpretation, the DM is supposed to interpret it.
Yes, there are parts of the game that are not overly focused on mechanics-based... stuff. The whole Trinkets table is designed to showcase that there is stuff in the game universe other than stuff that effects combat or survival-type endeavors. That has very little bearing on whether a spell has two portions to the description or not and whether one or the other portion 'counts' -- they both do, and there aren't really two portions.

[MaxWilson]

But, unless you are talking about with epic feats, only every other simulacrum can use wish to do it.

No, they just need to Wish for a Simulacrum of someone who has Wish and a 9th level slot available, e.g. the original wizard. In one minute you can have ten Simulacra of yourself, and the tenth still has a 9th level slot with which to create an eleventh.

[Sigreid]

Yes, that was mentioned earlier. I don't usually evaluate shinannigans by what a coordinated effort can do. And honestly, I've rarely been in a group with more than one wizard and even more rarely been in one with 2 arcane casters at level 17+

[PhoenixPhyre]

Relatively simple house rule: no summoned, created, or conjured creature can summon, conjure, or create another creature. No chaining summons or anything like them.

[Sigreid]

Or you know, in your session 0 "It's ok to be clever and creative but lets all agree here and now to not intentionally break the game".

[JoeJ]

Relatively simple house rule: no summoned, created, or conjured creature can summon, conjure, or create another creature. No chaining summons or anything like them.

Although I kind of like the idea of a BBEG that is a simulacrum that gained it's freedom by creating a second simulacrum and sending it to kill the original caster.

[Sigreid]

Although I kind of like the idea of a BBEG that is a simulacrum that gained it's freedom by creating a second simulacrum and sending it to kill the original caster.

One of the modules that is literally the explanation of the big bad.

[JoeJ]

One of the modules that is literally the explanation of the big bad.

Interesting. Do you remember which one?

[Segev]

Although I kind of like the idea of a BBEG that is a simulacrum that gained it's freedom by creating a second simulacrum and sending it to kill the original caster.

I like to think of simulacra, being illusions and not conjurations or transmutations, as being philosophical zombies. Not actually people, but really good facsimiles that act in all ways like them. But fiat defined as having no "there" there.

That said, one becoming a person with his own self-awareness as a unique thing would be interesting and a neat seed for a BBEG. Why it became self-aware would be an interesting part of the mystery, I think.

[Sigreid]

Interesting. Do you remember which one?
ToA. From what I understand the original lich was destroyed in Lore in ToH, and his simulacra used a wish to become a real boy.

[Segev]

ToA. From what I understand the original lich was destroyed in Lore in ToH, and his simulacra used a wish to become a real boy.

I do not believe that to be canon to ToA. Or, if it is, it's inherited, never-mentioned canon.

[Sigreid]

I do not believe that to be canon to ToA. Or, if it is, it's inherited, never-mentioned canon.

Possibly true. I got the information from one of the D&D lore videos. Given the otter wizard in Avernes it doesn't seem out there though.

[Segev]

Possibly true. I got the information from one of the D&D lore videos. Given the otter wizard in Avernes it doesn't seem out there though.

Oh, I wouldn't say it's bad lore if it is canon, nor fault a DM for adding that to his own canon. I just don't think it comes up in ToA at all, so if it's canon, it comes from some other source.

[Sigreid]

Oh, I wouldn't say it's bad lore if it is canon, nor fault a DM for adding that to his own canon. I just don't think it comes up in ToA at all, so if it's canon, it comes from some other source.

The person who made the video does pull from multiple sources. All official, but across editions.

[Segev]

The person who made the video does pull from multiple sources. All official, but across editions.

I'd be curious if he incorporated REturn to the Tomb of Horrors and its plotline. Acererak's doings in that are...ambitious.

[Sigreid]

I'd be curious if he incorporated REturn to the Tomb of Horrors and its plotline. Acererak's doings in that are...ambitious.

I think it was an AJ Picket video, but I'm not 100% sure.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Or, if it is, it's inherited, never-mentioned canon.

Clarification: inherited canon == not canon at all. There is no default inheritance of canon between editions, as much as people (including many writers) want there to be.

[Segev]

Clarification: inherited canon == not canon at all. There is no default inheritance of canon between editions, as much as people (including many writers) want there to be.

"Inherited canon" can also mean, "It was said in another 5e book somewhere."

[PhoenixPhyre]

"Inherited canon" can also mean, "It was said in another 5e book somewhere."

Ok, then yes. Although I'd be loath to say that anything that happens in an adventure module is "canon" for anything but that module. And there aren't many other "lore" books that talk about these sorts of things (yet).