Clone Questions

[lall]

After the soul is transferred, is the new being technically a different creature than the original?

(Reason I’m asking is that once you have 120+ clones at full size and maturity, you could then begin a daily process of casting Ceremony for Coming of Age, living a good 23 hours and change, and then murdering yourself before the 24 hour mark to avoid exhaustion. You pop up in a new clone and repeat the process. Your clone would obviously need access to the spell components.)

Also, can Clone be used on Small creatures? (Some search results indicate only Medium creatures can be cloned.)

If only Medium creatures can be cloned, could my gnome use Enlarge Reduce, enlarge to Medium, and then use Wish for Clone to create a clone? If so, would the clone be Medium?

Thanks in advance for any replies.

[JNAProductions]

What does the Ceremony do?

And I’d have no more issue with a Small clone than a Medium one.

[Lord Vukodlak]

It’s not a different creature it’s you.

[Unoriginal]

It’s not a different creature it’s you.

This.

Also Ceremony cares about the soul of the individual, not their body.

[lall]

What does the Ceremony do?
One of its options is allowing a creature to add a d4 to all ability checks for 24 hours. A creature can receive this benefit only once.

[JNAProductions]

One of its options is allowing a creature to add a d4 to all ability checks for 24 hours. A creature can receive this benefit only once.

Yeah, it’s still you. You can’t get it more than once.

Clone is a new body, but not a new creature.

[lall]

This.

Also Ceremony cares about the soul of the individual, not their body.
The question is whether or not it’s a different individual, i.e creature. “Original creature” is used more than once in Clone’s spell description, implying (one could interpret), that the clone is a different creature. Otherwise, the wording (one could argue) would have been something like “the creature’s original manifestation/being/etc.” My first thought when I see “original creature” is that the clone must be a subsequent, and thus technically different creature, even though it’s identical.

[lall]

Another argument is that the root of creature is something created. So the clone (“created by magic”) can’t exist in an antimagic field, but the original creature could.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Clone is just a preemptive raise dead or resurrection. Its a spell you cast before hand in case you die, or possibly to extend your life span depending on setting.

For instance if you make a clone of yourself and are later stabbed to death. You awake in the clone, the body left behind is a lifeless husk that can't be raised because you aren't dead. If the clone was a new creature then the original could be raised or the clone wouldn't need you to die inorder to come to life.

[MaxWilson]

After the soul is transferred, is the new being technically a different creature than the original?

(Reason I’m asking is that once you have 120+ clones at full size and maturity, you could then begin a daily process of casting Ceremony for Coming of Age, living a good 23 hours and change, and then murdering yourself before the 24 hour mark to avoid exhaustion. You pop up in a new clone and repeat the process. Your clone would obviously need access to the spell components.)

I would certainly say "Yes, it's a new creature at least to the extent that the other 119 Clones are useless and you need to grow a new one from your new body."

I'd be open to having Coming of Age work again. It's certainly less problematic than letting Clone stack.

[lall]

Thanks all. Many aspects of this spell (like much of this game) appear to be open to DM interpretation.

[RSP]

(Reason I’m asking is that once you have 120+ clones at full size and maturity, you could then begin a daily process of casting Ceremony for Coming of Age, living a good 23 hours and change, and then murdering yourself before the 24 hour mark to avoid exhaustion. You pop up in a new clone and repeat the process. Your clone would obviously need access to the spell components.)

Also, can Clone be used on Small creatures? (Some search results indicate only Medium creatures can be cloned.)

I see nothing in the spell description that limits it to Medium size creatures.

As for the Ceremony question, there’s a lot more a 15th+ level Wizard could be doing than trying to get +1d4 to skill checks. For the same cost of doing this for 120 days, they could have a 242 Simulacrum-chain going, for one thing.

I think the question of whether a Clone-d individual winks out of existence in an AMF is a good one (I’d say it does as it is a creature created by magic after the clone is used).

[Rafaelfras]

I see nothing in the spell description that limits it to Medium size creatures.

As for the Ceremony question, there’s a lot more a 15th+ level Wizard could be doing than trying to get +1d4 to skill checks. For the same cost of doing this for 120 days, they could have a 242 Simulacrum-chain going, for one thing.

I think the question of whether a Clone-d individual winks out of existence in an AMF is a good one (I’d say it does as it is a creature created by magic after the clone is used).
I would say it doesn't. The duration of the spell is instantaneous. The clone matures "naturally" and when your soul is in there it's just you, there is no magic going on anymore

[Lord Vukodlak]

I see nothing in the spell description that limits it to Medium size creatures.

As for the Ceremony question, there’s a lot more a 15th+ level Wizard could be doing than trying to get +1d4 to skill checks. For the same cost of doing this for 120 days, they could have a 242 Simulacrum-chain going, for one thing.

I think the question of whether a Clone-d individual winks out of existence in an AMF is a good one (I’d say it does as it is a creature created by magic after the clone is used).

Only if a creature brought back via raise dead dies in an AMF because he's only brought back by magic. Or a reincarnated creature returns to its original form.

[RSP]

I would say it doesn't. The duration of the spell is instantaneous. The clone matures "naturally" and when your soul is in there it's just you, there is no magic going on anymore


Only if a creature brought back via raise dead dies in an AMF because he's only brought back by magic. Or a reincarnated creature returns to its original form.

Play it as you see fit, I’m just going off the wording of AMF: “A creature or object summoned or created by magic temporarily winks out of existence in the sphere. Such a creature instantly reappears once the space the creature occupied is no longer within the sphere.”

I find it difficult not to see a clone as “a creature…created by magic”, and the spell is clear on what happens with that. There may indeed be plenty of other situations that interact similarly with AMF.

[Anymage]

I see nothing in the spell description that limits it to Medium size creatures.

The text of the Clone spell (https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/clone). I'm pretty sure that most DMs wouldn't apply that line if they happened to have a small sized wizard in the party, but RAW it is there.


I think the question of whether a Clone-d individual winks out of existence in an AMF is a good one (I’d say it does as it is a creature created by magic after the clone is used).

If you read the spell with the deliberate intent of finding inconsistencies and loopholes, I'm sure you could make the argument that the clone is created rather than grown, and that it is therefore a magical construct that would wink out.

As actually interpreted? I'm sure that most DMs would acknowledge it as a preemptive resurrection spell, and not want to inflict a weakness to AMFs on that character going forwards. The fluff of the text through the material components implies that the clone is seeded and thus grown from a bit of tissue as opposed to created ex nihilo from magic, and quite simply having to remember who actually did get cloned sounds like extra bookkeeping hasslethat most groups would be happier not bothering with.

[Townopolis]

I think it's worth noting that only D&D Beyond includes the line about Clone only working on medium creatures. The print PHB doesn't include that line, and it isn't in any errata documents that I can find, just the D&D Beyond database.

[RSP]

The text of the Clone spell (https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/clone). I'm pretty sure that most DMs wouldn't apply that line if they happened to have a small sized wizard in the party, but RAW it is there.

My internet sources say otherwise…

“This spell grows an inert duplicate of a living creature as a safeguard against death.”

Not sure if it’s an errata thing or a misprint. AFB so can’t check my PHB printing.




If you read the spell with the deliberate intent of finding inconsistencies and loopholes, I'm sure you could make the argument that the clone is created rather than grown, and that it is therefore a magical construct that would wink out.

The “deliberate intent” you want to apply to my reading is not there. My intent is reading the RAW and applying it to answer the question posed. The cloned creature is, in fact, created by magic.

Anything else you want to read into it is on you.


I think it's worth noting that only D&D Beyond includes the line about Clone only working on medium creatures. The print PHB doesn't include that line, and it isn't in any errata documents that I can find, just the D&D Beyond database.

This is what I’ve found as well.

[PhantomSoul]

It seems the 10th printing of the PHB (2018) has the Medium specification.

[Rafaelfras]

The “deliberate intent” you want to apply to my reading is not there. My intent is reading the RAW and applying it to answer the question posed.

Then it will not wink out of existence. As others pointed out, if you want to go super strict with the text, the spell transform a body part into a full functional and dormant body. The duration being instant implies all the magic went out after you cast it.
It's no different from a resurrection spell creating a new body from a body part.
AMF refers to ongoing spells. Like summon creature and spiritual weapon, bigbys hand, modenkainen hound, etc.

[RSP]

Then it will not wink out of existence. As others pointed out, if you want to go super strict with the text, the spell transform a body part into a full functional and dormant body. The duration being instant implies all the magic went out after you cast it.
It's no different from a resurrection spell creating a new body from a body part.
AMF refers to ongoing spells. Like summon creature and spiritual weapon, bigbys hand, modenkainen hound, etc.

Again, I’m going off the RAW to answer a question. If you want to decide the RAW isn’t appropriate, by all means, do so. Here’s the RAW:

“Creatures and Objects. A creature or object summoned or created by magic temporarily winks out of existence in the sphere. Such a creature instantly reappears once the space the creature occupied is no longer within the sphere.”

The question is “how do two powerful level 8 spells interact?” The RAW is pretty clear, assuming you accept that magic is involved in creating the clone.

By all means, default to “clone overpowers AMF” at your tables; it won’t change anything for me. But the RAW is pretty clear that it doesn’t.

[JackPhoenix]

AMF refers to ongoing spells.

[citation needed]

[Rafaelfras]

[citation needed]

Sage advice :


An effect created by a spell that's instantaneous isn't susceptible to antimagic areas or being dispelled. #DnD

https://www.sageadvice.eu/once-animated-a-skeletonzombie-would-stay-animated-in-antimagic-field/


Again, I’m going off the RAW to answer a question. If you want to decide the RAW isn’t appropriate, by all means, do so. Here’s the RAW:

“Creatures and Objects. A creature or object summoned or created by magic temporarily winks out of existence in the sphere. Such a creature instantly reappears once the space the creature occupied is no longer within the sphere.”

The question is “how do two powerful level 8 spells interact?” The RAW is pretty clear, assuming you accept that magic is involved in creating the clone.

By all means, default to “clone overpowers AMF” at your tables; it won’t change anything for me. But the RAW is pretty clear that it doesn’t.

You are not going Raw.
Clone is not a creature created by magic and it's not affected by AMF.
There is no entry in the spell text saying otherwise.
The duration of clone is instantaneous, there is no magic going on after you cast it. When a soul get inside it and it awakes, it's just a regular person. You can't dispell it, AMF doesn't affect it. This is RAW.
If you want to house rule that AMF can affect regular people, it's ok, you do you. But it's still a house rule

[Xetheral]

Can you use dispel magic on the creations of a spell like
animate dead or affect those creations with antimagic
field?

Whenever you wonder whether a spell’s effects can be dispelled or suspended, you need to answer one question: is the spell’s duration instantaneous? If the answer is yes, there is nothing to dispel or suspend. Here’s why: the effects of an instantaneous spell are brought into being by magic, but the effects aren’t sustained by magic (see PH, 203). The magic flares for a split second and then vanishes.

For example, the instantaneous spell animate dead harnesses magical energy to turn a corpse or a pile of bones into an undead creature. That necromantic magic is present for an instant and is then gone. The resulting undead now exists without the magic’s help. Casting dispel magic on the creature can’t end its mockery of life, and the undead can wander into an antimagic field with no adverse effect.

Another example: cure wounds instantaneously restores hit points to a creature. Because the spell’s duration is instantaneous, the restoration can’t be later dispelled. And you don’t suddenly lose hit points if you step into an anti-magic field!

In contrast, a spell like conjure woodland beings has a non-instantaneous duration, which means its creations can be ended by dispel magic and they temporarily disappear within an antimagic field.

The Sage Advice Compendium is very explicit: anti-magic field can never suspend the effects of instanteous spells like Clone or Animate Dead. So a creature created by a spell only winks out in an AMF if the spell that created it has an ongoing duration.

[RSP]

Sage advice :



https://www.sageadvice.eu/once-animated-a-skeletonzombie-would-stay-animated-in-antimagic-field/


The Sage Advice Compendium is very explicit: anti-magic field can never suspend the effects of instanteous spells like Clone or Animate Dead. So a creature created by a spell only winks out in an AMF if the spell that created it has an ongoing duration.

Are we all on the same page as to what “RAW” means?

[Rafaelfras]

Are we all on the same page as to what “RAW” means?

I don't think so, since you are making up things that AMF don't do and calling it RAW

[Townopolis]

It seems the 10th printing of the PHB (2018) has the Medium specification.

Oh boy. I'm sure there was a very good reason to prevent gnome and halfling and goblin and kobold casters, specifically, from being able to clone themselves. Regardless, thank you for the information. I did not realize the text was even being changed between printings.

[PhantomSoul]

Oh boy. I'm sure there was a very good reason to prevent gnome and halfling and goblin and kobold casters, specifically, from being able to clone themselves. Regardless, thank you for the information. I did not realize the text was even being changed between printings.

Yeah... It's not exactly comforting that there are changes they don't tell you about... (I don't think this is the first one that's come up in a discussion, either... :/)

I can't currently find my other (older) book to check whether it was secretly added or secretly removed (and can't check whether it's both!).

EDIT --

Looks like it's new: https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/bugs-support/34575-clone-spell-errata
(Maybe they screwed up trying to limit it to normal PC sizes?)

[Xetheral]

Are we all on the same page as to what “RAW” means?

Likely not. As in the rest of life, there are competing approaches to textual interpretation of game rules. I'd be shocked if we all agreed on the precise definition of RAW, on how to determine which interpretation is RAW, or on the significance of a particular interpretation being RAW.

[RSP]

I don't think so, since you are making up things that AMF don't do and calling it RAW

I’m making up nothing and don’t appreciate you saying I am. Clone is a magic spell that creates a body. Is that something you dispute?

AMF clearly states creatures created by magic: “Creatures and Objects. A creature or object summoned or created by magic temporarily winks out of existence in the sphere.”

So if Clone is magically creating a body (that is a creature once the effect of the spell is completed in its entirety), then AMF winks it out.

If you disagree that magic is what is creating the body, by all means share your logic. However, calling me out as “making things up” is not appropriate.

[Xetheral]

Clone is a magic spell that creates a body. Is that something you dispute?

Personally, yes, I dispute it. The text of Clone says it grows a body, not that it creates one. In some contexts "growing" something might qualify as "creating" it, but I see no reason to assume that the text of AMF is such a context.

[Townopolis]

On the topic of RAW, my understanding is that Sage Advice is not widely recognized as RAW. It's usually counted as RAI, but not RAW.

That said, my understanding is also that 5e is the edition where RAW counts for the least, and "ask your DM" is the closest to a be-all, end-all answer. For example, it sounds like folks would run Clone VS. AMF very differently at their tables, and that's just part of life (and 5e).

[RSP]

Likely not. As in the rest of life, there are competing approaches to textual interpretation of game rules. I'd be shocked if we all agreed on the precise definition of RAW, on how to determine which interpretation is RAW, or on the significance of a particular interpretation being RAW.

You may well be aware of it, but for others to which this is unclear:

RAW is “rules as written”, which don’t include Sage Advice. The RAW for AMF, is the text found within the PHB for it. AMF will interact with other general rules as well, but it’s text will be the rules as written (RAW) for it.

It’s literally exactly what’s written in the ruleset. Other ways to examine the rules of 5e include “rules as intended” (RAI), and “rules as fun” (RAF). I’m sure there’s others.

I’ve repeatedly stated I’m referring to the RAW in answering the question. Using tweets or Sage Advice falls under RAI, which is not the RAW, therefore does not impact my answer.

As I’ve repeatedly stated in my responses, no one is required to adhere to the RAW, however, that is the evidence I’m using to draw a conclusion for the question at hand.

[Rafaelfras]

I’m making up nothing and don’t appreciate you saying I am. Clone is a magic spell that creates a body. Is that something you dispute?

AMF clearly states creatures created by magic: “Creatures and Objects. A creature or object summoned or created by magic temporarily winks out of existence in the sphere.”

So if Clone is magically creating a body (that is a creature once the effect of the spell is completed in its entirety), then AMF winks it out.

If you disagree that magic is what is creating the body, by all means share your logic. However, calling me out as “making things up” is not appropriate.

Insinuating that I don't know what RAW means it's also not appropriate.
I disagree that Clone enters in the "creatures and objects" category from antimagic field.
My logic is already shared by xetheral, from sage advice.
The duration of the spell is instantaneous, as is fabricate, as is animate dead, as is true resurrection. There is no spell going on to be suppressed by a antimagic field.

[RSP]

Personally, yes, I dispute it. The text of Clone says it grows a body, not that it creates one. In some contexts "growing" something might qualify as "creating" it, but I see no reason to assume that the text of AMF is such a context.

Do you have a clone without magic? If no, then magic is indeed involved in how it is created, and it’s fair to say the clone is created by the magic of the spell.

[RSP]

Insinuating that I don't know what RAW means it's also not appropriate.

SA isn’t RAW. Indicating it’s evidence of RAW is indicating that there is a misunderstanding of what is RAW.



I disagree that Clone enters in the "creatures and objects" category from antimagic field.
My logic is already shared by xetheral, from sage advice.

Again, using SA as a reference isn’t relevant to RAW.

If you’re stating magic isn’t used in creating the clone, why does it entail the use of an 8th level spell slot? Or are spells also not included in magic for you?

[JNAProductions]

Do you have a clone without magic? If no, then magic is indeed involved in how it is created, and it’s fair to say the clone is created by the magic of the spell.

Let's say you have a PC with 10 max HP. They're hit for 10 points of damage, dropping them to dying, healed with a Healing Word for 4 HP, bringing them to 4 HP total, and then hit for 11 points of damage. If they had NOT received the magical healing, they'd be dead dead. Not just dying. But with the Healing Word, they survive.

This PC then enters an AMF ten minutes later. Do they die, because without magic, they'd be dead?

[RSP]

Let's say you have a PC with 10 max HP. They're hit for 10 points of damage, dropping them to dying, healed with a Healing Word for 4 HP, bringing them to 4 HP total, and then hit for 11 points of damage. If they had NOT received the magical healing, they'd be dead dead. Not just dying. But with the Healing Word, they survive.

This PC then enters an AMF ten minutes later. Do they die, because without magic, they'd be dead?

Is the PC a creature created by magic? If no, then AMF would not affect them by winking them out.

Nothing in the RAW of AMF states having been healed as something it affects. It does state it has an affect on creatures created by magic, however.

[Rafaelfras]

SA isn’t RAW. Indicating it’s evidence of RAW is indicating that there is a misunderstanding of what is RAW.



Again, using SA as a reference isn’t relevant to RAW.

If you’re stating magic isn’t used in creating the clone, why does it entail the use of an 8th level spell slot? Or are spells more included in magic for you?

Yes it is, since it's something made by people who wrote the rules for people who has doubts about the rules. For Jeremy crowford sage advice and rules as written are one and the same. His understanding of the rules tends to agree with my own.

The fact that magic is used to make a body part grown into a clone doesn't mean it is magic forever.

Rules as Written is :


This spell grows an inert duplicate of a living creature as a safeguard against death.

The Create part is your doing and inserting to twist the spell so it fills in your interpretation.
The word Create isn't used in anywhere in the spell text

[PhantomSoul]

Playing advocate's devil,[1]

Antimagic Field:
ANTI MAGIC FIELD
8th-level abjuration
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Self (10-foot-radius sphere)
Components: V, S, M (a pinch of powdered iron or
iron filings)
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 hour
A 1 0-foot-radius invisible sphere of antimagic surrounds
you. This area is divorced from the magical energy that
suffuses the multiverse. Within the sphere, spells can't
be cast, summoned creatures disappear, and even magic
items become mundane. Until the spell ends, the sphere
moves with you, centered on you.
Spells and other magical effects, except those created
by an artifact or a deity, are suppressed in the sphere
and can't protrude into it. A slot expended to cast
a suppressed spell is consumed. While an effect is
suppressed, it doesn't function, but the time it spends
suppressed counts against its duration.
Targeted Effects. Spells and other magical effects,
such as magic missile and charm person, that target
a creature or an object in the sphere have no effect
on that target.
Areas of Magic. The area of another spell or magical
effect, such as fireball, can't extend into the sphere.
If the sphere overlaps an area of magic, the part of
the area that is covered by the sphere is suppressed.
For example, the flames created by a wall of fire are
suppressed within the sphere, creating a gap in the wall
if the overlap is large enough.
Spells. Any active spell or other magical effect on a
creature or an object in the sphere is suppressed while
the creature or object is in it.
Magic Items. The properties and powers of
magic items are suppressed in the sphere. For
example, a +I longsword in the sphere functions as a
nonmagical longsword.
A magic weapon's properties and powers are
suppressed if it is used against a target in the sphere or
wielded by an attacker in the sphere. If a magic weapon
or a piece of magic ammunition fully leaves the sphere
(for example, if you fire a magic arrow or throw a magic
spear at a target outside the sphere), the magic of the
item ceases to be suppressed as soon as it exits.
Magical Travel. Teleportation and planar travel
fail to work in the sphere, whether the sphere is the
destination or the departure point for such magical
travel. A portal to another location, world, or plane of
existence, as well as an opening to an extradimensional
space such as that created by the rope trick spell,
temporarily closes while in the sphere.
Creatures and Objects. A creature or object
summoned or created by magic temporarily winks out
of existence in the sphere. Such a creature instantly
reappears once the space the creature occupied is no
longer within the sphere.
Dispel Magic. Spells and magical effects such as
dispel magic have no effect on the sphere. Likewise, the
spheres created by different antimagic field spells don't
nullify each other.

Clone:
CLONE
8th-level necromancy
Casting Time: 1 hour
Range: Touch
Components: V, S, M (a diamond worth at least 1 ,000
gp and at least 1 cubic inch of flesh of the creature
that is to be cloned, which the spell consumes, and a
vessel worth at least 2 ,000 gp that has a sealable lid
and is large enough to hold a Medium creature, such
as a huge urn, coffin, mud-filled cyst in the ground, or
crystal container filled with salt water)
Duration: Instantaneous
This spell grows an inert duplicate of a living, Medium
creature as a safeguard against death. This clone
forms inside a sealed vessel and grows to full size and
maturity after 1 2 0 days; you can also choose to have
the clone be a younger version of the same creature. It
remains inert and endures indefinitely, as long as its
vessel remains undisturbed.
At any time after the clone matures, if the original
creature dies, its soul transfers to the clone, provided
that the soul is free and willing to return. The clone is
physically identical to the original and has the same
personality, memories, and abilities, but none of the
original's equipment. The original creature's physical
remains, if they still exist, become inert and can't
thereafter be restored to life, since the creature's soul
is elsewhere.

Instantaneous:
I NSTANTA NEOUS
Many spells are instantaneous. The spell harms,
heals, creates, or alters a creature or an object in a way
that can't be dispelled, because its magic exists only
for an instant.

Pasting errors are, of course, someone else's fault. (This is a joke, yes; I'm just not going to change <I> to <1> and the like.)

------

1a. Argument for Clone to beat AMF
Clone is Instantaneous, which means the spell itself (and its magic) is over. It can definitely not be dispelled, and the "active spell or other magical effect" portion of AMF therefore doesn't apply.

My thoughts: Since AMF specifies what it does, AMF could explicitly apply even to the effects of a spell that is done.

1b. Argument for Clone to beat AMF
The Clone is grown, but it is not necessarily Created. Clone doesn't use the term "created" at all. Based on this, Clone doesn't gave the "Creatures and Objects" portion of AMF apply.

My thoughts: Unconvinced, but the next point is better.

1c. Argument for Clone to beat AMF
The body of the Clone is created, but the soul is not, and therefore it's not a Creature created by magic. It's more like a creature with a permanent non-dispellable transmutation or a ghost possessing a potentially non-magical object/body.

My thoughts: This seems solid. See end for comical interpretation, but the idea is probably that the bit of flesh that's replaceable with a focus grows into the body, in which case that would be an argument that be body isn't even really created by the spell. That's inference of the possible idea, but the spell doesn't state that.

2a. Argument for AMF to beat Clone
Clone does create the Creature (because the Creature and the body otherwise weren't there), and crucially the part about objects and creatures is not a subset of the part about active spells; it's a separate portion of the spell with the same "indent level".

My thoughts: This is what I thought was going to win for me; it seems pretty solid, especially since "create" doesn't get used like a technical term overall. 1c is compelling, though, since Clone didn't create or summon the creature, though it plausibly summoned the soul to the magically created body.

2b. Argument for AMF to beat Clone
This relies on a typical interpretation of RAW: Familiars poof. If familiars poof, then so should the Clone, since the Clone is a magically created body [like the familiar's] and the soul is also pre-existing. Sure, the Familiar's soul probably counts as summoned (conjuration spell, and the spell mentions summoning, albeit only to bring the familiar back from a pocket dimension, not for getting the soul), but it's basically the same schtick of taking a soul from somewhere and putting it into a magically created body.

My thoughts: It probably makes sense to treat the spells the same way, though you could read into the school distinction that Clone is more like Reincarnating you into a distant duplicate of yourself, while Find Familiar summons a soul and conjures a body to go with it.

My overall thoughts:
There's a fun possibility that the Clone [if treated separately, in which case it could count as an object created by magic] is bleeped but the soul isn't. This could be lots of fun or completely traumatising.


__________
[1] Advocate's devil because it'll end up being devil's advocate for both sides, and rules-based analyses at that! Text from 10th printing; October 2018.[2]
[2] I wrote this footnote before ending up having a stronger opinion.

[RSP]

Yes it is, since it's something made by people who wrote the rules for people who has doubts about the rules. For Jeremy crowford sage advice and rules as written are one and the same. His understanding of the rules tends to agree with my own.

No, it isn’t. You’re confusing some application of RAI with RAW. Crawford’s thoughts fall under RAI, as does SA.



The fact that magic is used to make a body part grown into a clone doesn't mean it is magic forever.

The Create part is your doing and inserting to twist the spell so it fills in your interpretation.
The word Create isn't used in anywhere in the spell text

The “create” part is logic: the spell creates the body. Whether that is by growing it from an small bit of flesh or not, it still is magic that is responsible for the creation of that body.

[JackPhoenix]

Yes it is, since it's something made by people who wrote the rules for people who has doubts about the rules. For Jeremy crowford sage advice and rules as written are one and the same. His understanding of the rules tends to agree with my own.

They literally aren't: "Official rules are in rulebooks. On Twitter and in Sage Advice, I give rulings and clarifications." (https://www.sageadvice.eu/does-something-become-raw-simply-because-you-say-it-on-twitter/)

[Rafaelfras]

The “create” part is logic:.

So RAI, not RAW.

I rest my case

[RSP]

So RAI, not RAW.

I rest my case

Um, what case is that? Nothing I’ve stated deals with RAI, so I’m not sure what you’re arguing.

The RAW states how creatures created by magic are handled inside a AMF, if you want to ignore that and go by SA, again, go with it (or with whatever your DM decides to do).

[Rafaelfras]

Um, what case is that? Nothing I’ve stated deals with RAI, so I’m not sure what your arguing.

The RAW states how creatures created by magic are handled inside a AMF, if you want to ignore that and go by SA, again, go with it (or with whatever your DM decides to do).

Yes and clone is not a creature created by magic.
As I pointed out, the term create is not present in the spell description (nor creature btw), unlike bigbys hand, wall of fire, spiritual weapon.
When you say "the “create” part is logic:." this is RAI not RAW.
For your interpretation to be RAW you have to show me where in the spell text is WRITTEN "You create..." and where the clone is refered as a creature. If it isn't in the text then it's not RAW.
Again you can house rule players revived via clone and resurrection puffing out on AMF on your table all you want, but it's not RAW

[Lord Vukodlak]

Do you have a clone without magic? If no, then magic is indeed involved in how it is created, and it’s fair to say the clone is created by the magic of the spell.

Do you have a raised or resurrected creature without magic?

[RSP]

Do you have a raised or resurrected creature without magic?

The AMF spell doesn’t have an interaction with raised or resurrected creatures though, so I’m not sure what the point of the question is.

If a body were to be created by magic as part of a True Resurrection, that could be affected by it though.

[RSP]

Yes and clone is not a creature created by magic.
As I pointed out, the term create is not present in the spell description (nor creature btw), unlike bigbys hand, wall of fire, spiritual weapon.
When you say "the “create” part is logic:." this is RAI not RAW.
For your interpretation to be RAW you have to show me where in the spell text is WRITTEN "You create..." and where the clone is refered as a creature. If it isn't in the text then it's not RAW.
Again you can house rule players revived via clone and resurrection puffing out on AMF on your table all you want, but it's not RAW

The spell effects of Clone end with a creature, whose body was created by magic, which is something AMF interacts with, explicitly, as stated multiple times already.

[Rafaelfras]

The spell effects of Clone end with a creature, whose body was created by magic, which is something AMF interacts with, explicitly, as stated multiple times already.

Where in the text says it was CREATED?
The word Create is not in the text

[Yuki Akuma]

The spell effects of Clone end with a creature, whose body was created by magic, which is something AMF interacts with, explicitly, as stated multiple times already.

You are the only person who interprets these spells interacting in this way. {scrubbed}

[RSP]

Where in the text says it was CREATED?
The word Create is not in the text

Was there a body before the magic of the spell went into effect? No. Is there one after the magic of the spell has completed? Yes. That fits the definition of “created”. Hence, the spell created the body, regardless of the wording used.

[RSP]

You are the only person who interprets these spells interacting in this way. {scrub the post, scrub the quote}

This does not appear to be true based on other posters, however, I do not require others to agree with me to follow logic.

I’m not sure why you seem to be agitated by this either: if you don’t like the way the spells interact, then play them differently (or however your DM decides). But insulting me doesn’t change that Clone uses magic to create a body that becomes a creature, or the AMF winks creatures created by magic out of existence.

[Lord Vukodlak]

The AMF spell doesn’t have an interaction with raised or resurrected creatures though, so I’m not sure what the point of the question is.

If a body were to be created by magic as part of a True Resurrection, that could be affected by it though.

If you’re going to argue that amf effects clone but not raise dead. Then you’re being hypocritical.
You were dead this magic makes you alive. Therefore amf cancels it out.

[Yuki Akuma]

This does not appear to be true based on other posters, however, I do not require others to agree with me to follow logic.

If you didn't care what other people thought, you wouldn't still be trying to convince people.

"I don't actually care" is never said by people who don't care, you are not fooling anybody.

[Rafaelfras]

Was there a body before the magic of the spell went into effect? No. Is there one after the magic of the spell has completed? Yes. That fits the definition of “created”. Hence, the spell created the body, regardless of the wording used.

This RAI, not RAW.
Again shown me in the text where it says it creates a body.
You can't because it's not there, what you are doing is trying to fit your interpretation as RAW.
There IS something there before the spell. A piece of flesh. The spell make it grown into a full body.
It transforms, not create, the duration being instantaneous goes as far as telling us that it doesn't even need magic to grown for 120 days. So no, I doesn't create a body because it is not written that it does, regardless how much you try to interpret otherwise.

[RSP]

If you’re going to argue that amf effects clone but not raise dead. Then you’re being hypocritical.
You were dead this magic makes you alive. Therefore amf cancels it out.

No I’m not.

Nothing in AMF states it effects creatures raised or brought back to life from magic; it states it effects creatures created by magic.

Again, if you use True Resurrection to create a new body that then becomes a creature as part of the effect of the spell; then, yes, it too would fall under the effect of AMF as a “creature created by magic.”

However, Raise Dead does not create a new body, it repairs an existing one and magically repaired bodies are not something covered by AMF.


If you didn't care what other people thought, you wouldn't still be trying to convince people.

"I don't actually care" is never said by people who don't care, you are not fooling anybody.

I’m answering a question using the rules of the game. You’re, for whatever reason, attacking me for doing so.

The logic is sound whether you like it or not. I go with the logic, but you’re free to run it however you like.


This RAI, not RAW.
Again shown me in the text where it says it creates a body.
You can't because it's not there, what you are doing is trying to fit your interpretation as RAW.
There IS something there before the spell. A piece of flesh. The spell make it grown into a full body.
It transforms, not create, the duration being instantaneous goes as far as telling us that it doesn't even need magic to grown for 120 days. So no, I doesn't create a body because it is not written that it does, regardless how much you try to interpret otherwise.

There is no body. You cast a magic spell. Now there is a body, only through the effects of said magic spell. Therefore, magic created that body.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Clone does not create a body it grows one. A Grown creature is not covered by amf. Only summoned and created.
Therefore by raw it doesn’t work.

[Rafaelfras]

There is no body. You cast a magic spell. Now there is a body, only through the effects of said magic spell. Therefore, magic created that body.

Your interpretation, not covered by the actual spell text.


Clone does not create a body it grows one. A Grown creature is not covered by amf. Only summoned and created.
Therefore by raw it doesn’t work.


This

[lall]

If you’re going to argue that amf effects clone but not raise dead. Then you’re being hypocritical.
Clone makes multiple references to the “original creature”, implying to me that the clone is a subsequent creature. Raise Dead makes multiple references to the creature (no use of “original creature”) returning. So I believe Clone creates a separate creature, whereas Raise Dead does not. True Resurrection mentions a new body, but also fails to include the words “original creature”. It mentions the creature being restored, not to dissimilar from returning. Happy to concede my position is RAI.

[RSP]

Clone does not create a body it grows one. A Grown creature is not covered by amf. Only summoned and created.
Therefore by raw it doesn’t work.

Again, a body does not exist. Then a spell is cast, the effect of which means there is now a body that was formed into being by the magic of the spell. That body, therefore, was created by magic.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Again, a body does not exist. Then a spell is cast, the effect of which means there is now a body that was formed into being by the magic of the spell. That body, therefore, was created by magic.

But the body is not the creature. The creature has a body, but is not the body. The creature existed before clone was cast. Therefore, by plain language, it cannot have been created by the spell.

[Rafaelfras]

Again, a body does not exist. Then a spell is cast, the effect of which means there is now a body that was formed into being by the magic of the spell. That body, therefore, was created by magic.
This is just wrong. Read the actual spell.
A piece of flesh exist. You transform it into something else. The duration is instantaneous so your spell is already over. Then this something else grows into a full clone for 120 days by itself. It's not creation.

[TaiLiu]

True resurrection mentions that it "can even provide a new body if the original no longer exists." I wonder if Rsp29a would also argue that such a creature would also wink out in an AMF.

[RSP]

But the body is not the creature. The creature has a body, but is not the body. The creature existed before clone was cast. Therefore, by plain language, it cannot have been created by the spell.

The creature is some combination of the body and the soul, but not a “creature” if either one is missing. Multiple spells reference this, here are a couple examples:

Raise Dead
“You return a dead creature you touch to life, provided that it has been dead no longer than 10 days. If the creature's soul is both willing and at liberty to rejoin the body, the creature returns to life with 1 hit point.”

The creature returns to life only if the soul rejoins the body (the dead body being not a creature, but an object now).

True Resurrection
“If the creature's soul is free and willing, the creature is restored to life with all its hit points…
…The spell can even provide a new body if the original no longer exists, in which case you must speak the creature's name. The creature then appears in an unoccupied space you choose within 10 feet of you.”

The creature only appears if the soul is able to either rejoin the body, or join the newly created body.

So it’s pretty clear that soul+body=creature. The mixture can be finagled, particularly with undead, as seen when a spirit of a creature (spirit and soul seem to be used as synonyms) rises as a Specter, from the Wraith ability:

“Create Specter: The wraith Targets a Humanoid within 10 feet of it that has been dead for no longer than 1 minute and died violently. The target's spirit rises as a Specter in the space of its corpse or in the nearest unoccupied space.”

Technically, that spirit forms a new body that is the Specter: Specters have resistance to, but can still be affected by normal weapons, so have some sort of corporeal body to go along with the spirit of the slain humanoid.

Some Undead (skeletons?), and Constructs perhaps, might be exceptions to this, but it holds true for the creature types we’re discussing that would use Clone.

So, if the creature does not exist without the body, as indicated by these passages, and magic is responsible for the creation of the body and combining the spirit/soul with the body, therefore, creating the creature; it is then a creature that is created with magic.

As pointed out by Iall, the Clone spell even differentiates between the original creature and the newly created creature.



A piece of flesh exist.

A “piece of flesh” that is expressly not a body, correct? If that piece of flesh were a body, a body would not have to be formed from the magic, correct?

Therefore, the magic creates the new body.

Also worth noting: the flesh is actually a component of the spell, that is consumed by the spell, which is not the same as growing a body from that piece of flesh; any more than the 1,000 gp Diamond also used as a component becomes the body.

At no point does the spell state the body grows from the flesh used as a component.

[Xetheral]

There is no body. You cast a magic spell. Now there is a body, only through the effects of said magic spell. Therefore, magic created that body.

This logic is not a complete argument to show that such a body is affected by Antimagic Field. To make it a complete argument you still need to show that when the text of Antimagic Field uses the phrase "created by magic" it is using it--in the same way you are--to mean "anything that exists as a result of a magic spell ever being cast".

However, there is reason to believe that "created by magic" in the description of Antimagic Field is not being used that broadly. In particular, the first paragraph of the spell description establishes that the spell operates by disconnecting a specific area from "the magic energy that suffuses the universe." In that context it would be somewhat biazrre to interpret "created by magic" broadly enough to include non-magical objects and creatures that aren't currently connected to the magic energy that suffuses the universe.

In other words, I think you're reading the phrase "created by magic" in the text of Antimagic Field out of context to mean "anything ever created by magic". That would be a plausible reading if the phrase appeared on its own, but in the context of the description of how the spell functions I don't think it's the best reading. Instead, I think the best reading is that "created by magic" is being used narrowly to refer to objects and creatures created by ongoing magic, which have the necessary connection to "the magic energy that suffuses the universe" for Antimagic Field to be able to disrupt.

[Rukelnikov]

For the reasoning that AMF winks a cloned creature out of existance to be consistent, all of the following should be winked out as well:

Warforgeds
Simic Hybrids
Dhampirs
Hexbloods
Reborns (some may be exempt)
Creatures Reincarnated
Creatures True Ressurected without a body
Vampires, Zombies, Skeletons, and most (all?) undead created from previously living creatures
Constructs (most)

maybe some others

[Xetheral]

For the reasoning that AMF winks a cloned creature out of existance to be consistent, all of the following should be winked out as well:

Warforgeds
Simic Hybrids
Dhampirs
Hexbloods
Reborns (some may be exempt)
Creatures Reincarnated
Creatures True Ressurected without a body
Vampires, Zombies, Skeletons, and most (all?) undead created from previously living creatures
Constructs (most)

maybe some others

Expanding on this, there's definitely an entire range of effects that might be construed as "created by magic" in some context or another. At one extreme, a tower of clean dishes created by an Unseen Servent was arguably "created by magic"--sure the dishes themselves weren't created by magic, but the tower itself was if you interpret the phrase as broadly as possible. One step up from that would be a tower of logs created by a pile of logs by the Fabricate spell, which is a slightly more direct act of magical "creation". At the other end of the spectrum you have the campfire created by Create Bonfire, which came into being from nothing as a result of the spell, and whose continued existence depends on that spell. Even in the narrowest possible conception of "created by magic" I think the bonfire would qualify.

The question then becomes how broadly or narrowly to read "created by magic" in the description of Antimagic Field. For the reasons described in my previous post, I think the context of the spell strongly suggests it should be read narrowly, limited to objects and creatures created by ongoing magic. Anything broader appears to me to conflict with the text of the spell that describes how it functions.

[Valmark]

I would say that a cloned creature is both the original and not- Clone!Frank isn't Original!Frank but is still Frank so wouldn't benefit from Ceremony a second time because they are Frank, but also could stack Clones because they are Frank. A lock of hair from Original!Frank wouldn't help Scrying on Clone!Frank since those aren't his hair anymore.

I think non-Medium creatures can be Cloned plenty fine- I haven't understood wether the latest PHB print has that limitation or not, but I wouldn't care either way. What, small creature don't have enough meat to satisfy the material component? What about Large?

As far as Anti-magic Field goes, it seems to me that cloned creatures wouldn't disappear. The magic isn't making a creature, it's making a body for a creature to form later.
Also depending on interpretation it's not even creating a body- it's not specified but a valid reading (and I assume the intended one) is that the piece of meat grows into a body, which doesn't mean creating one. Of course, that also depends on the interpretation of the verb 'create'.

For the same reasons something like Detect Magic wouldn't register a Cloned being as magical (at least not due to the clonation).

[RSP]

To make it a complete argument you still need to show that when the text of Antimagic Field uses the phrase "created by magic" it is using it--in the same way you are--to mean "anything that exists as a result of a magic spell ever being cast".

However, there is reason to believe that "created by magic" in the description of Antimagic Field is not being used that broadly. In particular, the first paragraph of the spell description establishes that the spell operates by disconnecting a specific area from "the magic energy that suffuses the universe." In that context it would be somewhat biazrre to interpret "created by magic" broadly enough to include non-magical objects and creatures that aren't currently connected to the magic energy that suffuses the universe.

Not so. To be a valid reading of the spell, a reading needs to be compatible with all aspects of the spell. That is, nothing in the reading can make a different part of the spell untrue.

You’re saying the “Creatures and Objects” section of the spell can be made not true (and indeed completely ignored), because the first paragraph of the spell may be read a certain way. Similar logic would mean the Magical Travel section of the spell is null and void and doesn’t matter, as magical travel isn’t mentioned in the first paragraph at all.

Again, this isn’t a valid way to read an ability or spell in the ruleset of 5e. You have to make sure any reading is compatible throughout the reading. The section on Magical Travel is indeed relevant to the spell, and should be included in any valid reading of the ability.

Likewise, and to what we’re mainly discussing, deciding “not all creatures created by magic wink out in the AMF” directly contradicts the section of the spell that states “A creature or object summoned or created by magic temporarily winks out of existence in the sphere.” That’s a direct contradiction and therefore is not a valid way to read the ability.

Again, nothing compels anyone to play this way, but to say it’s not what the RAW says is just incorrect.

[Segev]

Based on the precise words needed for the RAW argument that a clone-revived creature would wink out in an AMF, you must show that Clone cfeates a "creature" for the argument to hold. Nowhere do the RAW state that a body is a creature. (Please cite text to correct me if I am wrong.)

Some spells specify that they create, conjure, or summon a creature, specifying "creature" specifically. Clone does not. The closest it comes is saying "inert duplicate of art creature," which uses adjectives that strongly point to what the spell creates not actually being a creature.

[Rafaelfras]

Based on the precise words needed for the RAW argument that a clone-revived creature would wink out in an AMF, you must show that Clone cfeates a "creature" for the argument to hold. Nowhere do the RAW state that a body is a creature. (Please cite text to correct me if I am wrong.)

Some spells specify that they create, conjure, or summon a creature, specifying "creature" specifically. Clone does not. The closest it comes is saying "inert duplicate of art creature," which uses adjectives that strongly point to what the spell creates not actually being a creature.

Also nowhere in the text it says it creates something.

But alas is no use, he will just say " By logic..." (Which is RAI, not RAW) and insist his homebrew is RAW.

[Xetheral]

Not so. To be a valid reading of the spell, a reading needs to be compatible with all aspects of the spell. That is, nothing in the reading can make a different part of the spell untrue.

You’re saying the “Creatures and Objects” section of the spell can be made not true (and indeed completely ignored), because the first paragraph of the spell may be read a certain way. Similar logic would mean the Magical Travel section of the spell is null and void and doesn’t matter, as magical travel isn’t mentioned in the first paragraph at all.

Again, this isn’t a valid way to read an ability or spell in the ruleset of 5e. You have to make sure any reading is compatible throughout the reading. The section on Magical Travel is indeed relevant to the spell, and should be included in any valid reading of the ability.

Likewise, and to what we’re mainly discussing, deciding “not all creatures created by magic wink out in the AMF” directly contradicts the section of the spell that states “A creature or object summoned or created by magic temporarily winks out of existence in the sphere.” That’s a direct contradiction and therefore is not a valid way to read the ability.

Again, nothing compels anyone to play this way, but to say it’s not what the RAW says is just incorrect.

(Emphasis added.) Contray to the bolded assertion, I am not saying that that the Creatures and Objects section can be ignored. I am saying that there are multiple ways to read the "created by magic" phrase in the Creatures and Objects section and, in context, I don't think your broad reading is the best one.

[RSP]

(Emphasis added.) Contray to the bolded assertion, I am not saying that that the Creatures and Objects section can be ignored. I am saying that there are multiple ways to read the "created by magic" phrase in the Creatures and Objects section and, in context, I don't think your broad reading is the best one.

How is the clone created? By the magic of the spell. How does the soul transfer into the clone to create a new creature? By the magic of the spell.

If those are true, I find it impossible to suggest that magic is not involved in the creation of the new creature.

That is, there is no new creature without the magic of the spell: the spell creates the new creature.

What do you think the source of the new creature is if not from the magic of the Clone spell?


Also nowhere in the text it says it creates something.

But alas is no use, he will just say " By logic..." (Which is RAI, not RAW) and insist his homebrew is RAW.

“Creates” isn’t a 5e game term, it’s used as it’s common English meaning. Anything that falls into that meaning is valid.

[JNAProductions]

How is the clone created? By the magic of the spell. How does the soul transfer into the clone to create a new creature? By the magic of the spell.

If those are true, I find it impossible to suggest that magic is not involved in the creation of the new creature.

That is, there is no new creature without the magic of the spell: the spell creates the new creature.

What do you think the source of the new creature is if not from the magic of the Clone spell?

“Creates” isn’t a 5e game term, it’s used as it’s common English meaning. Anything that falls into that meaning is valid.

Do owlbears wink out in an AntiMagic Field? They were created with magic.

If I grow a seed with Druidcraft or Plant Growth or something, does it wink out in the field?

[RSP]

Based on the precise words needed for the RAW argument that a clone-revived creature would wink out in an AMF, you must show that Clone cfeates a "creature" for the argument to hold. Nowhere do the RAW state that a body is a creature. (Please cite text to correct me if I am wrong.)

As pointed out by Iall earlier in the thread, the Clone spell specifically differentiates between the “original creature” and the new one.

“At any time after the clone matures, if the original creature dies, its soul transfers to the clone, provided that the soul is free and willing to return.
The clone is physically identical to the original and has the same personality, memories, and abilities, but none of the original's equipment. The original creature's physical remains, if they still exist, become inert and can't thereafter be restored to life, since the creature's soul is elsewhere.”

To have a specified “original creature” different from the creature that exists at the end of the spell effect, you must therefore have a “new creature”.

So the spell does, indeed, have a creature created by the effects; one that is explicitly not the creature that was cloned.


Do owlbears wink out in an AntiMagic Field? They were created with magic.

If I grow a seed with Druidcraft or Plant Growth or something, does it wink out in the field?

I don’t feel compelled to address every instance of what is or isn’t in the category of thing affected by the AMF spell.

It’s a pretty simple question: Does it fall into the category of “A creature or object summoned or created by magic temporarily winks out of existence in the sphere.”

Just because there are more examples of stuff that falls in that category, doesn’t make the RAW untrue.

[Segev]

How is the clone created? By the magic of the spell. How does the soul transfer into the clone to create a new creature? By the magic of the spell.

If those are true, I find it impossible to suggest that magic is not involved in the creation of the new creature.

That is, there is no new creature without the magic of the spell: the spell creates the new creature.

What do you think the source of the new creature is if not from the magic of the Clone spell?



“Creates” isn’t a 5e game term, it’s used as it’s common English meaning. Anything that falls into that meaning is valid.
You are switching between an insistence on a pedantic reading of one bit of rules and insisting on reinterpreting another part loosely in order to come to your conclusion.

You cannot demand that the precise wording about magic-created creatures winking out in the area of an AMF be so absolute that you had to treat instantaneous spells' results that way, but then turn around and insist that your inference that a spell that never says it creates a creature must do so because of how you interpreting. Well, you can, but you are being inconsistent in your premises when you do so.

Either you can infer holistic meaning from the entirety of the txt and what the spell and rules are saying overall, or you cannot. You cannot be internally consistent in your argument and switch between the two, as your claims require us to do to accept your arguments as valid and true.

[MaxWilson]

This logic is not a complete argument to show that such a body is affected by Antimagic Field. To make it a complete argument you still need to show that when the text of Antimagic Field uses the phrase "created by magic" it is using it--in the same way you are--to mean "anything that exists as a result of a magic spell ever being cast".

However, there is reason to believe that "created by magic" in the description of Antimagic Field is not being used that broadly. In particular, the first paragraph of the spell description establishes that the spell operates by disconnecting a specific area from "the magic energy that suffuses the universe." In that context it would be somewhat biazrre to interpret "created by magic" broadly enough to include non-magical objects and creatures that aren't currently connected to the magic energy that suffuses the universe.

In other words, I think you're reading the phrase "created by magic" in the text of Antimagic Field out of context to mean "anything ever created by magic". That would be a plausible reading if the phrase appeared on its own, but in the context of the description of how the spell functions I don't think it's the best reading. Instead, I think the best reading is that "created by magic" is being used narrowly to refer to objects and creatures created by ongoing magic, which have the necessary connection to "the magic energy that suffuses the universe" for Antimagic Field to be able to disrupt.

Hmmm. You may have just persuaded me to let liches operate in anti-magic zones.

[JNAProductions]

Rsp, you're not being consistent.

As Segev noted, you're applying a very strict, literal, exactly what it says reading of Antimagic Field and then following it up with an assumption (one based on the text, but not explicitly written there) for Clone. And it's not even the only way to read Clone-Clone starts with a piece of flesh from the person being cloned. It is grown with the aid of magic, but it's not created wholesale-in the same way a plant grown with a spell from a seed is not created wholesale, it's merely experiencing accelerated growth.

[PhantomSoul]

Rsp, you're not being consistent.

As Segev noted, you're applying a very strict, literal, exactly what it says reading of Antimagic Field and then following it up with an assumption (one based on the text, but not explicitly written there) for Clone. And it's not even the only way to read Clone-Clone starts with a piece of flesh from the person being cloned. It is grown with the aid of magic, but it's not created wholesale-in the same way a plant grown with a spell from a seed is not created wholesale, it's merely experiencing accelerated growth.

To be fair, the spell needs additional interpretation for all sides.

[JNAProductions]

To be fair, the spell needs additional interpretation for all sides.

Which is fine-but that does mean that RAW is not clear or complete. Which could be something to complain about-I wouldn't, because D&D is a cooperative game, not competitive-but that doesn't mean you can use pure RAW in this case when it's, by its nature, incomplete.

[Xetheral]

How is the clone created? By the magic of the spell. How does the soul transfer into the clone to create a new creature? By the magic of the spell.

If those are true, I find it impossible to suggest that magic is not involved in the creation of the new creature.

That is, there is no new creature without the magic of the spell: the spell creates the new creature.

What do you think the source of the new creature is if not from the magic of the Clone spell?

(Emphasis added.) You appear to be treating magic being involved in the creation of a creature as necessarily sufficient to satisfy the "created by magic" condition of Antimagic Field. But that's not a given: "created by magic" can have different meanings in different contexts. Determining whether or not something was "created by magic" is not a universal binary distinction that can applied in a vacuum to determine whether it is affected by the Antimagic Field spell. Instead, to determine whether or not an object or creature is affected by Antimagic Field one has to determine whether or not it was "created by magic" as that phrase is used in the spell.

For example, let's say a house is constructed by a character wearing a Belt of Giant Strength, and without the belt that character could not have created the house. There exists a context in which it's fair to say that the house was "created by magic". But that's not sufficient to conclude that the house would disappear in an Antimagic Field; instead one first has to determine whether "created by magic" as used in the spell description is broad enough to include objects whose creation used magic.

Similarly, with Clone, we have to determine whether "created by magic" in Antimagic Field is used broadly enough to include creatures whose current bodies were previously grown by a spell. I would argue no, because I think the context suggests it was not used that broadly. You are arguing yes, but you appear to have skipped the step of textual analysis where you determine how "created by magic" was used in Antimagic Field.

[PhantomSoul]

Which is fine-but that does mean that RAW is not clear or complete. Which could be something to complain about-I wouldn't, because D&D is a cooperative game, not competitive-but that doesn't mean you can use pure RAW in this case when it's, by its nature, incomplete.

But it does affect how RAW can be parsed; I'm on team 'Clone doesn't poof', but it's still pretty clear that both are consistent with RAW given some assumptions (e.g. what counts as 'the creature' and what counts as 'creating a creature'). I just find Clone beating AMF to be more compelling for me (and the metaphysical assumptions I'd use). That's despite that I originally thought I would have supported AMF beating Clone as RAW but played as Clone beating AMF because it would be better for the table! (Post on previous page.)

The spell doesn't actually say the hunk of flesh becomes the body either, and since created isn't obviously a game term, it seems reasonable to say "I'd say 'the spell created the body' for (a) I turned the flesh into a functioning body and (b) I used the flesh as a destroyed component in making a body." If creating the body and infusing it with a soul counts as creating a creature (which is often the take for Find Familiar), then the spell created a creature.

[MaxWilson]

Similarly, with Clone, we have to determine whether "created by magic" in Antimagic Field is used broadly enough to include creatures whose current bodies were previously grown by a spell.

Agreed, it's ambiguous without DM input.

Another example of ambiguity: if I take a human infant and raise her entirely on Goodberries, and then she grows and has a kid whom I also raise on Goodberries, was the kid's body created by magic? How about the mom's?

[RSP]

You are switching between an insistence on a pedantic reading of one bit of rules and insisting on reinterpreting another part loosely in order to come to your conclusion.


No, I’m reading the rules as written and applying them.

A creature exists at the end of the effects of the Clone spell.

The Clone spell explains how that creature is created by the effects of the spell.

That creature doesn’t exist before the effects of the Clone spell.

The Clone spell is magic.

Therefore, the creature created by the Clone spell counts as created by magic.

AMF causes creatures created by magic to wink out.

Therefore, AMF causes the creature created by the Clone spell to wink out.

It’s very simple, really.

[Anymage]

Just to poke the bear here, I will note that Reincarnate (https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/reincarnate) explicitly says that the spell forms a new adult body. That's a much clearer interpretation of "magic creates this thing" than Clone.

I'm still on the side of thinking that having to mind who was reincarnated for a very specific weakness interaction with a very specific spell sounds like more bookkeeping hassle than it's worth. And that given consensus on this thread I'd expect more DMs than not to agree with me. If rsp29a really wants to dig in his heels on the case of reincarnation, though, more power to him and his group.

[RSP]

Rsp, you're not being consistent.

As Segev noted, you're applying a very strict, literal, exactly what it says reading of Antimagic Field and then following it up with an assumption (one based on the text, but not explicitly written there) for Clone. And it's not even the only way to read Clone-Clone starts with a piece of flesh from the person being cloned. It is grown with the aid of magic, but it's not created wholesale-in the same way a plant grown with a spell from a seed is not created wholesale, it's merely experiencing accelerated growth.

The Clone is explicitly not grown from the piece of flesh. The flesh is a material component of the spell that is consumed with the casting. The body does not grow from it any more than it grows from the 1,000 gp Diamond used for the casting.

“Components: V S M (A diamond worth at least 1,000 gp and at least 1 cubic inch of flesh of the creature that is to be cloned, which the spell consumes, and a vessel…”

The spell specifically states the flesh is consumed, making it impossible to also exist after the casting.

[lall]

Just to poke the bear here, I will note that Reincarnate (https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/reincarnate) explicitly says that the spell forms a new adult body. That's a much clearer interpretation of "magic creates this thing" than Clone.
Reincarnate does get closer than Raise Dead, Resurrection, etc. in indicating that a new creature is fashioned in that it uses “the reincarnated creature”, implying possibly that two creatures have been involved in the process. Personally, I’d still consider it to be the same creature based on other verbiage in the spell, which is what many are stating with respect to Clone.

[RSP]

Just to poke the bear here, I will note that Reincarnate (https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/reincarnate) explicitly says that the spell forms a new adult body. That's a much clearer interpretation of "magic creates this thing" than Clone.

I'm still on the side of thinking that having to mind who was reincarnated for a very specific weakness interaction with a very specific spell sounds like more bookkeeping hassle than it's worth. And that given consensus on this thread I'd expect more DMs than not to agree with me. If rsp29a really wants to dig in his heels on the case of reincarnation, though, more power to him and his group.

I’ve at no point stated anything as to how I play any spell at my tables.

Don’t confuse my pointing out what the RAW states with an insistence that anyone (including myself) must play that way.

None of what I’m saying is meant to be “you must play this way.” I’ve been deliberately including in many posts that DMs should play however they want, because they should.

The question was asked how the spells interact. To aid in answering that question, I explained the RAW. People felt the need to attack me, and the RAW, over that, for some reason. Others, apparently, don’t like that AMF winks creatures made from magic out of existence and so want to try and argue that that doesn’t occur according to the RAW, whereas that is specifically what the RAW says.

As a note: I generally don’t argue my rulings as no one else (I’m assuming) is playing at my tables, and my belief is rulings should be made in accordance with what each table and DM are comfortable with: what’s fun at one table may not be as fun at another, so the rulings need not be the same.

I share the RAW when others have questions about the rules because that is most applicable universally to questions about the rules. I never insist that’s how people play though, because that would be ridiculous of me to do.

[Xetheral]

Hmmm. You may have just persuaded me to let liches operate in anti-magic zones.

May your players forgive me. :)


Agreed, it's ambiguous without DM input.

Another example of ambiguity: if I take a human infant and raise her entirely on Goodberries, and then she grows and has a kid whom I also raise on Goodberries, was the kid's body created by magic? How about the mom's?

Ooh, good example. We could go even farther and ask whether a painting made by a child gestated and grown exclusively on Goodberries is itself an object "created by magic" for purposes of Antimagic Field. At some point I image we'll hit an example of something or someone who would not exist except for magic, and yet we could all agree would not disappear in an AMF.

[Valmark]

The Clone is explicitly not grown from the piece of flesh. The flesh is a material component of the spell that is consumed with the casting. The body does not grow from it any more than it grows from the 1,000 gp Diamond used for the casting.

“Components: V S M (A diamond worth at least 1,000 gp and at least 1 cubic inch of flesh of the creature that is to be cloned, which the spell consumes, and a vessel…”

The spell specifically states the flesh is consumed, making it impossible to also exist after the casting.
I don't think you're using 'explicitely' correctly- nowhere it says that the spell consumes the flesh in a way that doesn't make the body grow from it. You would need a written explanation of what 'consuming' does.


The question was asked how the spells interact. To aid in answering that question, I explained the RAW. People felt the need to attack me, and the RAW, over that, for some reason. Others, apparently, don’t like that AMF winks creatures made from magic out of existence and so want to try and argue that that doesn’t occur according to the RAW, whereas that is specifically what the RAW says.

I share the RAW when others have questions about the rules because that is most applicable universally to questions about the rules. I never insist that’s how people play though, because that would be ridiculous of me to do.

What people are pointing out is that yours isn't the only reading- and possibly not even the most common. Sharing the RAW for that reason (because it's the most applicable universally) is tipically a good idea but then stating your own reading as the only one defeats the purpose, since it may lead to disinformation for whoever asked the question in the first place (and while you might not be stating that's the only reading of the RAW you look like you're doing that).

[Segev]

The trouble is that you are not going by what the RAW states. You are interpreting it in the Clone spell in a very liberal way to arrive at a particular conclusion, and then interpreting AMF in a very pedantic way that ignores context of all of the rest of how spell magic works in 5e to arrive at the rest of your interpretation.

You are not being consient in how you interpret the RAW. But you are claiming your inconsistent interpretations are the only possible way to read it.

So, no, you are not doing what you claim to be/thunk you are doing. Your interpretation is so wrong that it doesn't work even if you accept its premises, because you change the premises between how you read the two spells in order to achieve your interpretation.

[Thunderous Mojo]

The Clone is explicitly not grown from the piece of flesh. The flesh is a material component of the spell that is consumed with the casting. The body does not grow from it any more than it grows from the 1,000 gp Diamond used for the casting.

“Components: V S M (A diamond worth at least 1,000 gp and at least 1 cubic inch of flesh of the creature that is to be cloned, which the spell consumes, and a vessel…”

The spell specifically states the flesh is consumed, making it impossible to also exist after the casting.

Not necessarily. If something consumes your right arm, elements of your proteins still exist and are detectable in the consuming creature, and later your proteins would be detectable in the consuming creature's waste products.

RAW doesn't explicitly state When or How the fleshy component is consumed.

To continue the example:

If your right arm is used as the Fleshy Component of a Clone spell, once the hour long casting of the Clone Spell is complete, it is entirely consistent for a DM to rule that the right arm breaks down into a soupy mix of DNA, from which the Clone's full body forms while it is inside the specially prepared vessel.

A common background assumption for many D&D games is that the Prime Mover in the creation of the Multiverse used Magic in the multiverse's formation.

Shouldn't your interpretation of Anti-Magic and the consequences of Dependent Origination essentially cause All Things to Disappear in a zone of Anti-Magic?

After all, the entire Multiverse is likely a result of Magic in a D&D game.

[RSP]

Not necessarily. If something consumes your right arm, elements of your proteins still exist and are detectable in the consuming creature, and later your proteins would be detectable in the consuming creature's waste products.

RAW doesn't explicitly state When or How the fleshy component is consumed.

To continue the example:

If your right arm is used as the Fleshy Component of a Clone spell, once the hour long casting of the Clone Spell is complete, it is entirely consistent for a DM to rule that the right arm breaks down into a soupy mix of DNA, from which the Clone's full body forms while it is inside the specially prepared vessel.

A common background assumption for many D&D games is that the Prime Mover in the creation of the Multiverse used Magic in the multiverse's formation.

Shouldn't your interpretation of Anti-Magic and the consequences of Dependent Origination essentially cause All Things to Disappear in a zone of Anti-Magic?

After all, the entire Multiverse is likely a result of Magic in a D&D game.

I’m not concerned with made up examples and what they may mean as you can make up anything.

Just to be clear, are positing that consumed material components continue to exist after they are consumed?


I don't think you're using 'explicitely' correctly- nowhere it says that the spell consumes the flesh in a way that doesn't make the body grow from it. You would need a written explanation of what 'consuming' does.

Why isn’t the body grown from the Diamond, then? Can you then extract the Diamond from the creature’s body? Or is it consumed by the casting of the spell?

From the RAW on components:

“A spell’s components are the physical requirements you must meet in order to cast it.”

So in order to cast Clone, you must provide the bit of flesh, which is consumed.

If you’re going with “consumed doesn’t mean it’s gone”, how does that impact spells like Revivify? Can you just continually reuse the same components for subsequent castings because they don’t stop existing after being “consumed”?

To add to this: if the bit of flesh is part of the new body, then it hasn’t been consumed: it’s still right there. It could then be removed and used again for another casting, that same bit of flesh; which goes against it being consumed by the casting.

Likewise, it would be illogical to assume that after casting Raise Dead the 500 gp Diamond is sitting there with the raised creature, ready to be used again. That goes against the idea of it being consumed.

So while posters here might want to change the way components work for the Clone spell, it goes against how components work and the idea (or meaning) of a component being consumed.

[PhantomSoul]

Why isn’t the body grown from the Diamond, then? Can you then extract the Diamond from the creature’s body? Or is it consumed by the casting of the spell?

From the RAW on components:

“A spell’s components are the physical requirements you must meet in order to cast it.”

So in order to cast Clone, you must provide the bit of flesh, which is consumed.

If you’re going with “consumed doesn’t mean it’s gone”, how does that impact spells like Revivify? Can you just continually reuse the same components for subsequent castings because they don’t stop existing after being “consumed”?

The raw for components continues, specifying the (non-focus) implications for material components:

If a spell states that a material component is
consumed by the spell, the caster must provide this component
for each casting of the spell.

So while we can guess what happens in-world for consumed components when not specified, it may be that different things happen; maybe a diamond is destroyed during Revivify (and therefore couldn't be used for future castings), but the bit of flesh just stops being a bit of flesh (and therefore couldn't be used for future castings).

[RSP]

The raw for components continues, specifying the (non-focus) implications for material components:


So while we can guess what happens in-world for consumed components when not specified, it may be that different things happen; maybe a diamond is destroyed during Revivify (and therefore couldn't be used for future castings), but the bit of flesh just stops being a bit of flesh (and therefore couldn't be used for future castings).

But again, if that bit of flesh grows into a full body, then in fact that bit of flesh is still in existence. It could be cut apart from that body again and reused, which goes against the idea of it being consumed.

[JNAProductions]

But again, if that bit of flesh grows into a full body, then in fact that bit of flesh is still in existence. It could be cut apart from that body again and reused, which goes against the idea of it being consumed.

Can you extract a seed from a grown flower? As-in, the original seed, not a new seed.

[RSP]

Can you extract a seed from a grown flower? As-in, the original seed, not a new seed.

I’m not concerned with flowers.

If the argument is: the spell uses magic, a Diamond and and a bit of flesh to create a body, I can agree that logic is RAW.

If the argument is: the flesh specifically grows into a body, with it turning into a body, then that bit of flesh was not consumed: it still very much exists. Also, the logic here is just as likely the body grows from the Diamond, and the Diamond would likewise be extractable from the newly created body, the same way the flesh would.

[Rukelnikov]

But again, if that bit of flesh grows into a full body, then in fact that bit of flesh is still in existence. It could be cut apart from that body again and reused, which goes against the idea of it being consumed.

The flesh 100% CAN be cut from the clone and reused, or are you implying a cloned creature can't make more clones?

[Xetheral]

Can you extract a seed from a grown flower? As-in, the original seed, not a new seed.

If you use Fabricate to build a ship from the discarded, rotten planks of the Ship of Theseus, what happens when it sails into an Antimagic Field?

[RSP]

The flesh 100% CAN be cut from the clone and reused, or are you implying a cloned creature can't make more clones?

What are referring to by “the flesh”? If you’re referring to the original bit of flesh used as a component for the casting of Clone, then you’re saying that bit of flesh was not consumed by the spell; and that goes against the RAW, which specifically states it is consumed.

[JNAProductions]

What are referring to by “the flesh”? If you’re referring to the original bit of flesh used as a component for the casting of Clone, then you’re saying that bit of flesh was not consumed by the spell; and that goes against the RAW, which specifically states it is consumed.

Is a seed consumed when it grows into a flower?

You’re ignoring the analogy, despite it being pertinent.

[Rukelnikov]

What are referring to by “the flesh”? If you’re referring to the original bit of flesh used as a component for the casting of Clone, then you’re saying that bit of flesh was not consumed by the spell; and that goes against the RAW, which specifically states it is consumed.

Are you saying the clone can't cut flesh from its body for the component for a new clone?

[PhantomSoul]

But again, if that bit of flesh grows into a full body, then in fact that bit of flesh is still in existence. It could be cut apart from that body again and reused, which goes against the idea of it being consumed.

Except it would be consumed to the extent the word is used for material spell components; it renders it in its exact state no longer usable for a new instance of the spell and means a spellcasting focus can't be used. We don't know "consume" necessarily means "vanishes" or "is eaten" since we know it has a rules sense.

Cutting it from the body would suggest it isn't usable as is; you have to collect a new component.

[RSP]

Except it would be consumed to the extent the word is used for material spell components; it renders it in its exact state no longer usable for a new instance of the spell and means a spellcasting focus can't be used. We don't know "consume" necessarily means "vanishes" or "is eaten" since we know it has a rules sense.

Cutting it from the body would suggest it isn't usable as is; you have to collect a new component.

It’s the same bit of flesh though, hence not consumed. Again, what’s the difference of the Diamond persisting in this way?

[Valmark]

Why isn’t the body grown from the Diamond, then? Can you then extract the Diamond from the creature’s body? Or is it consumed by the casting of the spell?

From the RAW on components:

“A spell’s components are the physical requirements you must meet in order to cast it.”

So in order to cast Clone, you must provide the bit of flesh, which is consumed.

If you’re going with “consumed doesn’t mean it’s gone”, how does that impact spells like Revivify? Can you just continually reuse the same components for subsequent castings because they don’t stop existing after being “consumed”?

To add to this: if the bit of flesh is part of the new body, then it hasn’t been consumed: it’s still right there. It could then be removed and used again for another casting, that same bit of flesh; which goes against it being consumed by the casting.

Likewise, it would be illogical to assume that after casting Raise Dead the 500 gp Diamond is sitting there with the raised creature, ready to be used again. That goes against the idea of it being consumed.

So while posters here might want to change the way components work for the Clone spell, it goes against how components work and the idea (or meaning) of a component being consumed.
I mean, you're the one saying the body isn't grown from the diamond. Saying that the body is grown from the piece of flesh doesn't exclude the diamond- if we go with Thunderous Mojo's soup example the diamond could be dispersed in it.

Just like you can say that the the diamond in Revify is absorbed by the body.

If you consider 'growing from x' as developing all around x then probably you could get the exact piece of flesh back- there's a lot of ways that growing from something destroys the something.

It only goes against your assumptions, which aren't the same as the text.


But again, if that bit of flesh grows into a full body, then in fact that bit of flesh is still in existence. It could be cut apart from that body again and reused, which goes against the idea of it being consumed.

Only if the body grew around the piece of flesh.

[PhantomSoul]

It’s the same bit of flesh though, hence not consumed. Again, what’s the difference of the Diamond persisting in this way?

Except it's no longer the same bit of flesh; it's now a clone fetus.

[JNAProductions]

It’s the same bit of flesh though, hence not consumed. Again, what’s the difference of the Diamond persisting in this way?

If I eat a burger, it is consumed and converted into fat, protein, etc. in my body. It didn't vanish into the ether-it was converted into me.

RAW says nothing about whether any given component be converted or destroyed outright. Again, your reading isn't an impossible one... But it makes Antimagic Field really, REALLY wonky and it's definitely not the ONLY possible RAW reading.

[Thunderous Mojo]

I’m not concerned with made up examples and what they may mean as you can make up anything.

This seems akin to the delusion that Tom Hanks character has in the movie Mazes and Monsters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazes%20and%20Monsters.

Rsp29a...it is D&D RAW itself that is 'Made Up'.....observable features like being able to detect Human Proteins in Coprolites...that is real.

'Thought Experiments' are how individuals involved in endeavors that rely upon theory...(which is a rather large set of activities) propose ideas and serves as a means for others to engage with those ideas.

Your statement reads as if you are stating in effect:
"I'm not concerned with your thoughts and what they may mean as you can think anything".....

Cool..tell me upfront if you are DM-ing how Anti-Magic works in your game, and likely as a player I can adapt, or just opt out.

As for your position under discussion in this thread...it doesn't seem to me to be sound.

Be Well and Good Gaming to you! ✌️🍻

[RSP]

If I eat a burger, it is consumed and converted into fat, protein, etc. in my body. It didn't vanish into the ether-it was converted into me.

RAW says nothing about whether any given component be converted or destroyed outright. Again, your reading isn't an impossible one... But it makes Antimagic Field really, REALLY wonky and it's definitely not the ONLY possible RAW reading.

Again, if your argument is that the Diamond and bit of flesh and magic of the spell, combined, create a body, you’ve no argument from me.

If you’re arbitrarily stating that the Diamond is consumed and no more, but the bit of flesh continues existing in the new body; then I’ll ask why are the Diamond and flesh treated differently when it states they are consumed? Why does the flesh persist, if it was consumed? Why isn’t the Diamond still there with the body able to be extracted if that’s what happened to the flesh?

As for RAW making AMF wonky, it’s magic: I don’t expect it to be “normal”. It’s also a very extreme bit of magic, with interactions with a lot of different things.

Again, if in play it’s not fun, or if there’s a more fun way to use it (other than RAW) for your table, I’d suggest going with that.

But saying it doesn’t say creatures created by magic temporarily wink out of existence, isn’t correct. Similarly, stating the creature that exists at the end of the Clone spell isn’t created by magic, also isn’t true.


Except it's no longer the same bit of flesh; it's now a clone fetus.

Ah, so you’re saying the Diamond, the flesh and the magic of the spell created a new body (what you call the clone fetus)? That is in line with the RAW.

Again, if your suggesting that bit of flesh has a new body grow out of it, like some sort of regeneration, then I would say that bit of flesh was not consumed, and that would not be in line with the RAW.

[Xetheral]

But saying it doesn’t say creatures created by magic temporarily wink out of existence, isn’t correct.

No one is arguing with you regarding which words appear in the text of Antimagic Field. We all agree that the spell says: "A creature or object summoned or created by magic temporarily winks out of existence in the Sphere." The disagreement is about what satisfies the criteria of "created by magic". You keep making definite pronouncements about what you think "created by magic" means as applied to Clone, but if you've engaged in any textual analysis of the text of Antimagic Field in reaching your conclusion you haven't posted it.

"Created by magic" is not well-defined. It could (e.g.) refer to anything created by any magic, or it could refer only to things created exclusively by magic. It could refer to anything that wouldn't exist but for the use of magic. "Creation" could be broad enough to include things like assembly from pieces, or it could be narrow enough to exclude everything except wholesale creation from scratch. "Magic" could refer to either of the primary senses in which the term is used in D&D: the specific one that is at play with Detect Magic, or the more general one involved with Dragons being able to fly and breathe fire.

Not all of these options are equal! As readers we can use the context of the spell to decide which interpretation we think is the best interpretation. But you don't appear to have done so, instead simply insisting that "created by magic" means whatever it is you think it means, without providing any supporting analysis.


Similarly, stating the creature that exists at the end of the Clone spell isn’t created by magic, also isn’t true.

Whether the creature that includes the body resulting from a Clone spell is or is not "created by magic" necessarily depends on how one defines the phrase. And when determining whether or not that creature winks out in an Antimagic Field, it is necessary to make sure that the definition of "created by magic" you're using is consistent with how that phrase is used in the spell description.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Not all of these options are equal! As readers we can use the context of the spell to decide which interpretation we think is the best interpretation. But you don't appear to done so, instead simply insisting that "created by magic" means whatever it is you think it means, without providing any supporting analysis.


And note that if we're being technical about the meaning of RAW (as the poster was being up-thread), you can't interpret any of these any further. All you can do is say "there's ambiguity/the outcome is not specified by RAW". Any interpretation or logic or analysis goes beyond RAW into RAITTSBI (Rules as I think they should be interpreted).

The broader point here is that RAW is fundamentally a starting point, not a stopping point or something useful/binding/meaningful in and of itself. It is by definition and by intention so incomplete as to require (on its own terms) DM/table-level decisions. So denying those interpretations means going against RAW, because RAW requires those interpretations.

This post brought to you all by your local "Stop worrying so much about RAW and start caring about the game as it's actually played" committee. :smalltongue:

[PhantomSoul]

Ah, so you’re saying the Diamond, the flesh and the magic of the spell created a new body (what you call the clone fetus)? That is in line with the RAW.

Again, if your suggesting that bit of flesh has a new body grow out of it, like some sort of regeneration, then I would say that bit of flesh was not consumed, and that would not be in line with the RAW.

But it would be consumed in the 5e mechanical sense for material spell components if it is no longer eligible to be the material component for the spell again. It is gone for the purposes of spell components, whether "gone" = "transmuted, morphed or grown into something else" or "gone" = "poofed or destroyed".

I'm saying it's wrong to say we know which it is, aside from the fact that the flesh stops being eligible for subsequent castings of the spell (aka: it's a consumed component in 5e terms). The spell implies "transmuted, morphed or grown into something else" but it states nothing.

RAW doesn't clarify which of the two valid options applies. It is incorrect to state that it does.


--- Edit for newer post ---


And note that if we're being technical about the meaning of RAW (as the poster was being up-thread), you can't interpret any of these any further. All you can do is say "there's ambiguity/the outcome is not specified by RAW". Any interpretation or logic or analysis goes beyond RAW into RAITTSBI (Rules as I think they should be interpreted).

The broader point here is that RAW is fundamentally a starting point, not a stopping point or something useful/binding/meaningful in and of itself. It is by definition and by intention so incomplete as to require (on its own terms) DM/table-level decisions. So denying those interpretations means going against RAW, because RAW requires those interpretations.

This post brought to you all by your local "Stop worrying so much about RAW and start caring about the game as it's actually played" committee. :smalltongue:

Agreed. Things are consistent with RAW or compatible with RAW or supported by RAW... but RAW is very much a underspecified and incomplete source (even before adding in explicit homebrew and house rules), and what actually matters is what gets played.

[RSP]

But it would be consumed in the 5e mechanical sense for material spell components if it is no longer eligible to be the material component for the spell again. It is gone for the purposes of spell components, whether "gone" = "transmuted, morphed or grown into something else" or "gone" = "poofed or destroyed".

I'm saying it's wrong to say we know which it is, aside from the fact that the flesh stops being eligible for subsequent castings of the spell (aka: it's a consumed component in 5e terms). The spell implies "transmuted, morphed or grown into something else" but it states nothing.

The spell states that the body grows, not that it grows from the flesh used as a component.

If that bit of flesh is still there when the spell is completed, how then was it consumed? How then is it not available to be used for a new Clone spell?

[PhantomSoul]

The spell states that the body grows, not that it grows from the flesh used as a component.

If that bit of flesh is still there when the spell is completed, how then was it consumed? How then is it not available to be used for a new Clone spell?

The spell says the body grows, and doesn't say it grows from nothing.

If the bit of flesh is now (part of or turned into) the clone fetus, it meets the requirements for being consumed as the term applies for spell components. It could have been destroyed. It could have been transmuted. A clone appears to not (yet) be a creature, so it really doesn't matter for the purpose of a spell component being consumed: either way, the flesh is no longer usable as a spell component, and both options are consistent with the information provided RAW.

[RSP]

The spell says the body grows, and doesn't say it grows from nothing.

If the bit of flesh is now (part of or turned into) the clone fetus, it meets the requirements for being consumed as the term applies for spell components. It could have been destroyed. It could have been transmuted. A clone appears to not (yet) be a creature, so it really doesn't matter for the purpose of a spell component being consumed: either way, the flesh is no longer usable as a spell component, and both options are consistent with the information provided RAW.

If the flesh is still exactly as it was prior to the casting, then it has not been consumed. Again, just like if the Diamond is just sitting there, it is not consumed.

If, along with the Diamond, it magically is changed into a body, then it is consumed.

[PhantomSoul]

If the flesh is still exactly as it was prior to the casting, then it has not been consumed. Again, just like if the Diamond is just sitting there, it is not consumed.

If, along with the Diamond, it magically is changed into a body, then it is consumed.

I consistently have said it isn't exactly as it is regardless of which interpretation is used. It's Consumed in both cases.

[JackPhoenix]

I don't think you're using 'explicitely' correctly- nowhere it says that the spell consumes the flesh in a way that doesn't make the body grow from it. You would need a written explanation of what 'consuming' does.

Clearly, the caster gets hungry after casting the spell for an hour, and needs a snack.

[RSP]

I consistently have said it isn't exactly as it is regardless of which interpretation is used. It's Consumed in both cases.

If it’s in its same state, then it’s not consumed.

As I understand it, your giving two scenarios: one where the components and the magic of the spell create a new body; one where the components are a part of the new body.

No argument with the first scenario.

The second, however, doesn’t have the components being consumed: they’re still right there. You saying “the Diamond is consumed” means nothing if the Diamond is sitting right there when the spell is done. That is, it was not, in fact, consumed.

[PhantomSoul]

If it’s in its same state, then it’s not consumed.

As I understand it, your giving two scenarios: one where the components and the magic of the spell create a new body; one where the components are a part of the new body.

No argument with the first scenario.

The second, however, doesn’t have the components being consumed: they’re still right there. You saying “the Diamond is consumed” means nothing if the Diamond is sitting right there when the spell is done. That is, it was not, in fact, consumed.

I don't have the flour after I've made bread.


EDIT:
Also, as another reminder of what's been said before, Consume is a clear game term: it means the material component must be supplied anew for future castings and that a spellcasting focus cannot replace the component. This game term sense is specifically consistent with both readings.

[RSP]

I don't have the flour after I've made bread.


The flour is not in the same state after you’ve made the bread. In fact, it no longer exists as “flour” at all anymore.

That would be an example of the “components plus magic transform into the new body.”

You, I thought, were stating the flesh is still in its same state.

[PhantomSoul]

The flour is not in the same state after you’ve made the bread. In fact, it no longer exists as “flour” at all anymore.

That would be an example of the “components plus magic transform into the new body.”

You, I thought, were stating the flesh is still in its same state.

No, I've repeatedly said it isn't in the same state, instead proposing two main possibilities:
(a) The flesh is destroyed to produce the clone fetus (as part of the spell), or
(b) The flesh becomes the clone fetus (e.g. by transmuting it or by magically growing it into a fetus)

In neither case is the flesh available as a material component for a new casting and in both cases the flesh is therefore Consumed (game term).

I (and we) said there are multiple ways for a thing to meet the requirements for Consumed, as above.

[RSP]

No, I've repeatedly said it isn't in the same state, instead proposing two main possibilities:
(a) The flesh is destroyed to produce the clone fetus (as part of the spell), or
(b) The flesh becomes the clone fetus (e.g. by transmuting it or by magically growing it into a fetus)

In neither case is the flesh available as a material component for a new casting and in both cases the flesh is therefore Consumed (game term).

I (and we) said there are multiple ways for a thing to meet the requirements for Consumed, as above.

Then I’m missing your point: the flesh is consumed by the magic and a new body is created either way.

Or is your point that the Diamond and flesh are consumed in different ways (not sure what this has to do with AMF but I’m trying to understand what you’re getting at)?

[PhantomSoul]

Then I’m missing your point: the flesh is consumed by the magic and a new body is created either way.

A new body is created doesn't mean a new creature is created (that original point is now pages back), which is what people (myself included) have already signalled as a point of DM decision.
(I'd say it's a new body being created regardless of whether the Component is Consumed; there was no body and now there's a body.)


Or is your point that the Diamond and flesh are consumed in different ways ... ?

They could be consumed in different ways. That's not really an issue.


(not sure what this has to do with AMF but I’m trying to understand what you’re getting at)

I think this set of points started because you claimed something about the flesh didn't fit RAW. (It's honestly not clear that was necessary for the conclusion either way.)

[RSP]

A new body is created doesn't mean a new creature is created (that original point is now pages back), which is what people (myself included) have already signalled as a point of DM decision.
(I'd say it's a new body being created regardless of whether the Component is Consumed; there was no body and now there's a body.)

A new creature is very much created: the spell specifically differentiates between the “original creature” and the new one.

“At any time after the clone matures, if the original creature dies, its soul transfers to the clone, provided that the soul is free and willing to return.”

If you have an “original creature”, you also have a new creature.



I think this set of points started because you claimed something about the flesh didn't fit RAW. (It's honestly not clear that was necessary for the conclusion either way.)

I was rebutting the idea that a new body grew out of the piece of flesh, without the piece of flesh changing: similar to if you took a piece of flesh off a troll, and that piece of flesh grew into a second troll.

[PhantomSoul]

A new creature is very much created: the spell specifically differentiates between the “original creature” and the new one.

But it's also the same Creature as previously existed (in terms of memories, abilities, etc.), hence the open question. Plus the Spell doesn't create the Soul; that comes from the original body. So it's up to the DM whether the existing Soul entering a new (magically created) body counts as a creating a Creature for the purposes of AMF.


I was rebutting the idea that a new body grew out of the piece of flesh, without the piece of flesh changing: similar to if you took a piece of flesh off a troll, and that piece of flesh grew into a second troll.

That would be consistent with the Spell, depending on how you define "without the piece of flesh changing" (it could go unchanged in some sense and still be mechanically consumed). Alternatively, the Spell creating some sort of amorphous proto-creature that eats (consumes hihi) the flesh and subsequently becoming a clone would be consistent.

RAW is insufficient to know.

[RSP]

But it's also the same Creature as previously existed (in terms of memories, abilities, etc.), hence the open question. Plus the Spell doesn't create the Soul; that comes from the original body. So it's up to the DM whether the existing Soul entering a new (magically created) body counts as a creating a Creature for the purposes of AMF.

No, it’s clearly not the same creature, hence the differentiating between the original creature and the new one: one creature died, and a new one was formed from the magic of the spell.

The Soul is the same, but the Soul is not a creature. Multiple spells break down that to some degree, a creature is a combination of body and soul, as shown, for example, with Magic Jar:

“Your body falls into a catatonic state as your soul leaves it and enters the container you used for the spell's material component.”

[lall]

Would anyone’s opinion change if M was bypassed via Wish? (I would presume a character’s preference would be to cast it this way if possible.)

[Reach Weapon]

After the soul is transferred, is the new being technically a different creature than the original?
Despite the fact that the text of the spell does not support this reading explicitly, I interpret the end result of the spell (barring complicating factors) to be that original creature is housed in their own body (that may now be younger and had previously been a duplicate) while elsewhere their equipment resides with their now inert former body.


So RAI, not RAW.
Rsp29a claims their assertions are based on a RAW methodology; that there appears to be flaws in them wouldn't change that.


To be a valid reading of the spell, a reading needs to be compatible with all aspects of the spell. That is, nothing in the reading can make a different part of the spell untrue.
Okay. One spell explicitly states the clone is physically identical to the original (https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/clone), and as existing is (among other things) a physical characteristic, any interpretation that causes a creature who inhabits their body as the result of a clone spell can not, by RAW, have a reaction to an AMF that is not identical to the one they would have had in their original body.

[Rafaelfras]

“Creates” isn’t a 5e game term, it’s used as it’s common English meaning. Anything that falls into that meaning is valid.

Say's who? You? It is a game term alright.
It is used on every single spell that create something.

Bigbys hand:

You create a Large hand of shimmering, translucent force in an unoccupied space that you can see within range.

Wall of fire:

You create a wall of fire on a solid surface within range.

Spirit weapon:

You create a floating, spectral weapon within range that lasts for the Duration or until you cast this spell again.

You know in what spell text that word doesn't shown up? That's right, clone :

This spell grows an inert duplicate of a living creature as a safeguard against death.

So no, create is a game term and it is used when it's appropriate. What you are doing is interpretation, because create isn't used in the spell text. Your interpretation isn't RAW. If clone was a creature created by magic, it's spell text would say so, like many others do and I proved to you using actual text, this argument is done and unless you have a written source to back up your claim, with the appropriate terms, this argument is done and we will agree on disagree.



Would anyone’s opinion change if M was bypassed via Wish? (I would presume a character’s preference would be to cast it this way if possible.)
No, the spell still is instantaneous, after it's cast there is no more magic going on. The clone grown by its own. It's not affected by AMF. After a soul enter in it, it's just a normal person regardless what brought him back from the dead.
Resurrected people, undead, objects made with fabricate, and many more products of instantaneous spells are not subject to anti magic field, because there is no magic going on anymore. That's the way I see it at least

[Valmark]

Small nitpick: creatures are made of body, soul and spirit. Though that's probably irrilevant right now.


No, it’s clearly not the same creature, hence the differentiating between the original creature and the new one: one creature died, and a new one was formed from the magic of the spell.

The Soul is the same, but the Soul is not a creature. Multiple spells break down that to some degree, a creature is a combination of body and soul, as shown, for example, with Magic Jar:

“Your body falls into a catatonic state as your soul leaves it and enters the container you used for the spell's material component.”

This argument could be the same about the body- a body is not a creature, so even if you say that a new body is created by magic it doesn't mean a new creature was created by magic.

[RSP]

Okay. One spell explicitly states the clone is physically identical to the original (https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/clone), and as existing is (among other things) a physical characteristic, any interpretation that causes a creature who inhabits their body as the result of a clone spell can not, by RAW, have a reaction to an AMF that is not identical to the one they would have had in their original body.

Being physically identical isn’t the same as being the same creature, though. Simulacrums are the same in appearance as the creature they duplicate, yet are expressly different creatures.

I have no idea where you’re last sentence is coming from. Can you cite RAW that states what you’re saying? AMF doesn’t care whether creatures look alike. It cares whether or not a creature is created by magic, or not.

Creatures are made up of Soul and Body, as shown in various spells. The Soul can be the same, while the body can change. Clone tells us this is different creatures (the original and new creature).

If an once elf is reincarnated as a human, it’s the same soul, but a different creature.

If a human Wizard Magic Jar’s themself into an Orc, they’re now a different creature. Same Soul, different body and different creature.

If a Human Wizard becomes an Undead Lich, same Soul but different creature (and even different creature type).

The Soul is not enough, by itself, to maintain the sameness of creature.

[PhantomSoul]

...
Creatures are made up of Soul and Body, as shown in various spells. The Soul can be the same, while the body can change. Clone tells us this is different creatures (the original and new creature).
...

You've said this a few times, but that's not actually what the Spell says: the Spell refers to an "original Creature" (which makes perfect sense regardless; there's a source Creature)... but it does not say that the result is a new Creature. At all. You added that to RAW.

[Reach Weapon]

I have no idea where you’re last sentence is coming from. Can you cite RAW that states what you’re saying? AMF doesn’t care whether creatures look alike. It cares whether or not a creature is created by magic, or not.
We do agree that Clone (https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/clone) is something that is written, right?
Clone (https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/clone) explicitly states how the resulting body works.
Whatever the resulting creature may or may not be, it is specified by the spell that it's physicality can not cause a reaction to an AMF that would not have resulted from it's original body.

[Valmark]

Creatures are made up of Soul and Body, as shown in various spells. The Soul can be the same, while the body can change. Clone tells us this is different creatures (the original and new creature).

If an once elf is reincarnated as a human, it’s the same soul, but a different creature.

If a human Wizard Magic Jar’s themself into an Orc, they’re now a different creature. Same Soul, different body and different creature.

If a Human Wizard becomes an Undead Lich, same Soul but different creature (and even different creature type).

The Soul is not enough, by itself, to maintain the sameness of creature.

Soul, Body and Spirit.

None of these examples are actually true -at least not universally- none of those state that you have a new creature (I could be wrong on liches, not sure). Ironically, in the first one Reincarnate even calls the soul a creature (or rather, the being before it gets a body), which should be the opposite of what you're saying.

Seems safe to assume that 'creature' doesn't have one single definition.

[RSP]

You've said this a few times, but that's not actually what the Spell says: the Spell refers to an "original Creature" (which makes perfect sense regardless; there's a source Creature)... but it does not say that the result is a new Creature. At all. You added that to RAW.

The fact that there is an original creature necessitates there is a new creature, otherwise there is only the one creature and no need to differentiate between them.

[PhantomSoul]

The fact that there is an original creature necessitates there is a new creature, otherwise there is only the one creature and no need to differentiate between them.

But there's a pre-Clone Creature and a pending inert duplicate and the post-Clone instance of the Creature. Facilitating reading can risk generating false or inapplicable conversational implicatures -- which is fine, because (a) those aren't actually stated, and (b) because the implicatures don't actually have to be true [it's just that in conversation, they usually are because of conversational norms].

So no, it doesn't necessitate a new Creature distinct from the original Creature when the goal is to distinguish the pre-Clone Creature from other possible interpretations that would otherwise arise.

[RSP]

But there's a pre-Clone Creature and a pending inert duplicate and the post-Clone instance of the Creature. Facilitating reading can risk generating false or inapplicable conversational implicatures -- which is fine, because (a) those aren't actually stated, and (b) because the implicatures don't actually have to be true [it's just that in conversation, they usually are because of conversational norms].

So no, it doesn't necessitate a new Creature distinct from the original Creature when the goal is to distinguish the pre-Clone Creature from other possible interpretations that would otherwise arise.

It is stated: the spell states “original creature”, not “pre-Clone creature”. If you have two creatures, the target of the Clone spell and the creature standing at the end of the spell’s effects, and one of those creatures is specifically called the “original creature”, then the other creature, by default of not being the original creature, is the new creature. Two creatures.

Also of note: the original creature is dead for the Clone to become the new creature. The two creatures cannot be the same creature as one is dead, and the other living.

[Reach Weapon]

the original creature is dead
Clone (https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/clone) explicitly states both that the spell is a safeguard against death and that corpse from which the soul transferred thereafter does not function as it's remains. It seems accurate to describe the creature as having died, but not as being dead.
It might be worth noting that it also says the clone is version of the same creature.

[PhantomSoul]

It is stated: the spell states “original creature”, not “pre-Clone creature”. If you have two creatures, the target of the Clone spell and the creature standing at the end of the spell’s effects, and one of those creatures is specifically called the “original creature”, then the other creature, by default of not being the original creature, is the new creature. Two creatures.

Except, again, it doesn't say it's a new creature at all. You were being strict with following what's written as written -- it never says it's a new creature. Ergo, again, DM call.


Also of note: the original creature is dead for the Clone to become the new creature. The two creatures cannot be the same creature as one is dead, and the other living.

That's a good argument for them being the same creature too; if the clone and the pre-clone could both be creatures at the same time that would be a problem... but they can't be -- and the spell makes that exceptionally clear, including writing in an explicit impossibility for the creature to be resurrected from the original body (because it's a living creature through the clone!).

[Captain Cap]

AMF clearly states creatures created by magic: “Creatures and Objects. A creature or object summoned or created by magic temporarily winks out of existence in the sphere.”

It could be argued that "temporarily" refers to "summoned or created", as the next sentence implies in itself a limited duration of the effect, "Such a creature instantly reappears once the space the creature occupied is no longer within the sphere", thus making the specification superfluous.

[RSP]

Clone (https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/clone) explicitly states both that the spell is a safeguard against death and that corpse from which the soul transferred thereafter does not function as it's remains. It seems accurate to describe the creature as having died, but not as being dead.
It might be worth noting that it also says the clone is version of the same creature.

It does not say it’s a version of the same creature: it says it makes a duplicate.

Clone does specifically state it transfers the soul: that’s not the same as being the creature though.

A creature cannot be dead and alive at the same time.


Except, again, it doesn't say it's a new creature at all. You were being strict with following what's written as written -- it never says it's a new creature. Ergo, again, DM call.

No. It’s like saying “the first creature” identifies that there is a second creature. “Original creature” identifies there’s a creature different than the original, which is the one created by the Clone spell.



That's a good argument for them being the same creature too; if the clone and the pre-clone could both be creatures at the same time that would be a problem... but they can't be -- and the spell makes that exceptionally clear, including writing in an explicit impossibility for the creature to be resurrected from the original body (because it's a living creature through the clone!).

The Clone is a living creature through the Clone, that is correct; however, we know there’s a distinction between the original creature and the one the Clone spell creates. One of those distinctions is that the original creature is dead. At no point does it say it brings that creature back to life, as spells such as Revivify does:

“You touch a creature that has died within the last minute. That creature returns to life with 1 hit point.”

Original creature dead. Soul moves to a creature that is not the original creature, the new creature.

[PhantomSoul]

Revivify brings you back to life, but, as per the description, Clone wards death off entirely. A lovely interpretation of that would be that Clone gives a new body to the same creature. If you're reading the text so strictly for comparisons, that seems like a pretty big statement!

As for "first" requiring a "second" and the like, that's false. My older sister was my mom's first kid even before she had me (her second kid). See: conversational implicatures above. You're projecting things into RAW -- things that are often true in conversation, but are not strictly or necessarily true according to the text.

It kind of shocks me that you can't accept that the interaction is open to interpretation and therefore a DM call to interpret RAW. (In other words, there is not only one interpretation that is consistent with RAW.) Especially when you're the reason I stopped thinking RAW was compellingly that clone would be poofed by AMF three pages ago!

In any case, I accept that putting time into this is pointless if you still can't see ambiguity or room for interpretation after 5 pages that should strongly lead a reader to infer there are multiple consistent readings, especially when now it's really just the same things repeating.

[RSP]

Revivify brings you back to life, but, as per the description, Clone wards death off entirely. A lovely interpretation of that would be that Clone gives a new body to the same creature. If you're reading the text so strictly for comparisons, that seems like a pretty big statement!

That “interpretation” completely ignores that the original creature is explicitly dead. That is a “pretty big statement” to ignore. And nothing states death is warded off (see Death Ward for how death can be warded off), again, the opposite is true: the creature must be dead for the spells effects to kick in.

Let’s look at the last sentence of Clone:

“The original creature's physical remains, if they still exist, become inert and can't thereafter be restored to life, since the creature's soul is elsewhere.”

So the dead remains are still the “original creature” and it’s soul is elsewhere (in the new creature). That’s not a description of “the original creature is still alive” as you are trying to state is the case, but the opposite.


It could be argued that "temporarily" refers to "summoned or created", as the next sentence implies in itself a limited duration of the effect, "Such a creature instantly reappears once the space the creature occupied is no longer within the sphere", thus making the specification superfluous.

This is a good argument. It does open the door to “what is a temporarily created by magic creature?” But I see this being a valid interpretation

[Segev]

The spell grows a duplicate body, that, upon death of the original creature, becomes the creature. It doesn't create the creature. If you can read into clone to argue that the spell created the creature, then you can read into AMF to argue that it doesn't apply to instantaneously-created effects wherein the magic is already over with.

At best, you've got a strong case for AMF preventing a clone-grown body still in its vat from accepting the spirit of the original if the original dies while the clone body is in the AMF. Even that's sketchy, despite the weirdness of it conceptually, since the clone spell's duration is over and thus there's nothing to suppress. But you could make an argument for it.

In the end, even if it's possible to read Rsp29a's interpretation into the interaction of these two spells, it is merely one interpretation and it is not at all the only possible one. DMs will rule how they will rule. The RAW in this case seem straightforward to me, but I can see room for arguing Rsp29a's ambiguity into it if a DM was inclined to rule that way. I do not think that is the intent, but divining RAI is always tricky. RAW, it can be read either way, and I find the most self-consistent interpretation to be that AMF doesn't reverse instantaneous effects. Certainly, Rsp29a's extremely strict reading of AMF, if applied to clone, would not lead to the interpretation Rsp29a is pushing for: if you read clone equally strictly to how Rsp29a is reading AMF, clone doesn't "create a creature."

[Reach Weapon]

It does not say it’s a version of the same creature: it says it makes a duplicate.
The words "version of the same creature" appear in exactly that order in the text of the Clone spell (https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/clone). Younger or not, I do not see how your interpretation is consistent with those words actually written there.

Granted, I think the spell is poorly written.

[Segev]

The words "version of the same creature" appear in exactly that order in the text of the Clone spell (https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/clone). Younger or not, I do not see how your interpretation is consistent with those words actually written there.

Granted, I think the spell is poorly written.

I honestly think it's written just fine if you remember that 5e is about "rulings, not rules," and just pay attention to whta the spell is describing as an effect. The biggest flaw in it is the later-printing addition of "medium" to restrict the size of the creature that can be cloned. That's just silly, and makes it useless to gnome wizards, which is idiotic.

[lall]

The words "version of the same creature" appear in exactly that order in the text of the Clone spell (https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/clone). Younger or not, I do not see how your interpretation is consistent with those words actually written there.

Granted, I think the spell is poorly written.
Agree it’s poorly written. “You can also choose to have the clone be a younger version of the same creature” could imply the clone is the same creature as the original creature. Or it could just mean that you have the option to make the clone look younger. If you are cloning Person A, you have to go with a younger version of Person A (same creature). You can’t go with a younger version of Persons B-Z, or some made up version that never existed.

[KorvinStarmast]

I don’t feel compelled to address every instance of what is or isn’t in the category of thing affected by the AMF spell. This demonstrated to me the failure in reasoning that compels me to find your position "this {Rsp29a's assertion} is RAW" untenable.

For further points, see Segev, PhantomSoul, and Valmark.

[lall]

That's just silly, and makes it useless to gnome wizards, which is idiotic.
Unless they first cast Enlarge/Reduce and then cast Clone via Wish?

[RSP]

This demonstrated to me the failure in reasoning that compels me to find your position "this {Rsp29a's assertion} is RAW" untenable.

I’m not sure why you think I’m obligated to answer every question anyone has regarding AMF or anything else, but that’s a ridiculous position to take (for the record: I’m not).

An even more ridiculous position is “your logic is flawed if you don’t answer every question.”

But to each their own.

[Segev]

Unless they first cast Enlarge/Reduce and then cast Clone via Wish?

Falls under the umbrella of "silly requirements to work around it." There's nothing thematic about having to cast enlarge to be able to clone yourself, especially not with a necromantic "save me from death" preemptive resurrection-clone. Thus, rather than enforcing something thematic, it does the opposite and encourages athematic behavior to achieve what shouldn't require a work-around at all.

Thus, it's a bad rule. It doesn't do the job it is meant to, as far as I can tell, and creates unintended problems.

[lall]

Thus, it's a bad rule. It doesn't do the job it is meant to, as far as I can tell, and creates unintended problems.
I agree. I think most DM’s would be okay with medium and small characters using it without having to jump through hoops.

[Townopolis]

On the one hand, yes, it's bad writing that Clone doesn't work for gnomes without Enlarge. On the other, the more I think about this, the more it tickles me. If I ever get to be a player, rather than GM, again, I'm gonna want to not mention this to my DM and play a gnome wizard specifically so that I can cast Enlarge before casting Clone with zero explanation...

... it's an arcane ritual!

Dimension Door, on the other hand... don't love how that interacts with small casters. But that's a topic for another thread.

[PhantomSoul]

On the one hand, yes, it's bad writing that Clone doesn't work for gnomes without Enlarge. On the other, the more I think about this, the more it tickles me. If I ever get to be a player, rather than GM, again, I'm gonna want to not mention this to my DM and play a gnome wizard specifically so that I can cast Enlarge before casting Clone with zero explanation...

... it's an arcane ritual!


Tragically, that means waiting for Wish, but I love it :P

[lall]

Would the new gnome be medium or small? Would it make a difference if a younger (small) version was chosen?

[lall]

Re: DD, my gnome always feels bad (or pretends to feel bad) when he can’t take a medium friend with him. He’s really saying.”One of us is kind of a big deal and the other is just big.”

[PhantomSoul]

Re: DD, my gnome always feels bad (or pretends to feel bad) when he can’t take a medium friend with him. He’s really saying.”One of us is kind of a big deal and the other is just big.”

I need to use this line, it's fantastic :P
(My gnome just didn't take the spell)