Infinite Simulacrums not as Easy as We Thought??

[kbob]

So I have been familiar with the cast simulacrum (S) and have your S use wish to cast another S cheese for a while. I have read this in forums for a while and thought, “what wonderfully evil cheese to bestow on some unsuspecting DM”. I would never use it though as I’m sure it is the illustration given after the definition of “broken cheese” in the “MinMaxers Lexicon of Everything: 5th Edition”. However, I decided to look it up recently for myself. I was kind of surprised by what I saw though. It seems it’s not as “efficient” as I thought it was. I apologize if someone else has spotted this and has mentioned it, but I have not seen this commented anywhere.
So the problem isn’t if the mechanics work or not. It seems to do just that. It’s just no where near as efficient as it has been propagated to be, as far as I’m reading anyway. If I’m wrong, please let me know.
So efficiency. It’s just very time constricting and expensive. I mean real world? Sure do it anyway. In game? You’re gonna need a lot of downtime. Now I know wish makes any spell it substitutes for, one action and removes expensive components. So that’s not the issue. The issue is 2 fold; one from the spell description and the other from the PHB.
1. This line in the spell description presents a problem for making a lot of S real quick.
“[The simulacrum] appears to be the same as the original… and is formed without any Equipment.” This means your S does not have its own spell book. This is a problem because…
2. …of this line of text from p.114 in the PHB.
“ Preparing a new list of wizard spells requires time spent studying YOUR spellbook and memorizing the incantations and gestures you must make to cast the spell: at least 1 minute per spell level for each spell on your list.”
Your S needs a spell book of its own to prepare spells. That means a lot of time and money to copy your spell book for it. If you only have the number of spells that you would have gained from leveling (meaning never adding other spells that you found) and you copy all of them, at level 17, the earliest for 9th level spells, you would have to spend 166 hours to copy one of your books and 1,660 gp (if my math is wrong, feel free to free to correct me but assumed 8 level one spells at class level 2 and adding 2 spells per class level for the highest possible spell level). If you do the minimum to make the cheese work, copy just wish, then that’s still 9 hours and 90 gp. Nowhere near as bad. But it kind of defeats the purpose of having an army of S if they can’t cast spells. So they need spells. As far as I can see, they should be able to prepare spells as long as they haven’t used up the slot (can’t gain “new abilities” in spell description doesn’t seem to prevent preparing spells to me). So it seems like they will still have to use a copy of your spellbook cuz they can’t use yours. But wait. If they can’t use yours, then you can’t make a copy for them using the same mechanics. It’s just like finding a new spell book in a dungeon. They will have to make their own copy which takes WAY MORE time and costs A LOT more gold as they are copying from someone else’s book. Now, it does state that you can copy your own cuz you know your own spells and have worked out the details already, etc. So maybe a DM would say it’s the same for the S as he is a copy. Then again, it says it’s partially real and obeys your commands and a lot of other text that makes it clear it is not you nor a true clone. Sounds like it needs its own book to prepare its own spells with its own remaining spell slots.
Anyway, that is what I’m getting from this. Again, if someone has mentioned this before I apologize that I haven’t seen it. Also if I’m wrong in something, again, I would like to know that. Sometimes I wish I could get the ear of some of the bigger optimizer names to see what they have to say, like treantmonk, but my little post won’t get that much exposure. Ha. Anyway, just something I wanted to share.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think the idea is that the simulacrum comes with all your knowledge. Including your prepared spells. So yeah, they can't reasonably prepare different spells, but you can. Prepare the "1st sim's set", cast sim, switch prepared spells, have the sim wish for a simulacrum of you ==> 2 sims, each with different prepared spells, and you can then prepare a 3rd set for your own use.

Personally, I just say "summoned or created creatures cannot and will not use any ability or item that would create or summon another creature." No summon chaining of any type. Plus some worldbuilding around sims and souls, which makes long-term use rather precarious (they don't learn and grow, so anything you don't know the answer to, the sim will never know). No creativity at all--they're basically programmed responses.

[meandean]

The ramifications of changing your spells prepared before casting simulacrum never occurred to me before... that is hilarious. I love the idea of creating Abjuration Me, Evoker Me, Necromancer Me, etc., each with totally different spell lists. It's D&D Inside Out​!

Of course, even cracking down on spellbook stuff wouldn't prevent Bards from doing it. (Edited because I originally said Sorcerers as well, but they can't do it because they don't get simulacrum and thus their simulacrums lose the 9th-level wish slot.)

[Anymage]

Trying to make broken abilities less broken by making them annoying through fiddly focus on the technical words has two major flaws. The first is simply that you're making the game even more annoying and fiddly, which should not be game design goals. The second is that someone will inevitably try to find a workaround for your workaround. In this case, a bard can also grab Sim and Wish with spell secrets without having to bother with buying a whole new spellbook.

[kbob]

Of course, even cracking down on spellbook stuff wouldn't prevent Bards from doing it.

I should’ve mentioned Bard has the cheat code to this as they don’t need spellbooks. Thanks!

[kbob]

Trying to make broken abilities less broken by making them annoying through fiddly focus on the technical words has two major flaws. The first is simply that you're making the game even more annoying and fiddly, which should not be game design goals. The second is that someone will inevitably try to find a workaround for your workaround. In this case, a bard can also grab Sim and Wish with spell secrets without having to bother with buying a whole new spellbook.

I was just pointing out a mechanic flaw as the combo exploits mechanical oversights. The true solution is “no you cannot do that”. And yes, the bard can get around the mechanics. I forgot to include him in the OP.
“More annoying and fiddly” is not the purpose of the post. The combo itself is both of those magnified by 1,000 (or however many S you choose to make). My point was to show there was a flaw in the exploit (as far as wizards go anyway). As a DM I would not combat this by doing as you stated. I would just tell them, “break my game with stupid combos and I will ask you to stop playing. I don’t throw cheese at yall. Any of my villains can do the same thing you are doing. And a whole lot more. Play nice and we can all have fun.”
But I digress. This is just a thought exercise and was looking for feedback discussion on it in the same spirit.

[kbob]

I think the idea is that the simulacrum comes with all your knowledge. Including your prepared spells. So yeah, they can't reasonably prepare different spells, but you can. Prepare the "1st sim's set", cast sim, switch prepared spells, have the sim wish for a simulacrum of you ==> 2 sims, each with different prepared spells, and you can then prepare a 3rd set for your own use.

Personally, I just say "summoned or created creatures cannot and will not use any ability or item that would create or summon another creature." No summon chaining of any type. Plus some worldbuilding around sims and souls, which makes long-term use rather precarious (they don't learn and grow, so anything you don't know the answer to, the sim will never know). No creativity at all--they're basically programmed responses.

Ya I think you’re correct with the first para. I think that is the idea. But I don’t see that being the case personally. At best it’s inferred. At worst, “wishful” thinking.

I like your response in your second para. I think if I come across a player attempting this (my players usually know broken stuff don’t fly with me though) I’ll try this argument as a first line.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Ya I think you’re correct with the first para. I think that is the idea. But I don’t see that being the case personally. At best it’s inferred. At worst, “wishful” thinking.

I like your response in your second para. I think if I come across a player attempting this (my players usually know broken stuff don’t fly with me though) I’ll try this argument as a first line.

I don't make any claim that the rule in the second paragraph is "RAW". It's explicitly a change I make. And it applies to way more than simulacrum--you summon a devil with summoning abilities? Great. He won't/can't use them and you can't force him to. They're locked out. You conjure a galeb dhur (that can animate other boulders)? Great. It won't/can't use that ability. Etc.

Beyond that, I've always been uncomfortable with wish as a spell you can learn, even in its "safe" uses (ie replicating a spell without components). If it were, instead, anyspell and didn't remove components/reset the cast time to 1 action, I'd be happier. Sure, it's a versatile spell. But much more manageable.

And don't get me started about the "stat block diving" spells...one of the few changes I see coming in 5.5e that I strongly approve of is the deprecating of the classic Conjure X line in favor of the Summon X line. And I think that wildshape and polymorph should follow that path, either giving fixed stat blocks[1] or a scaling "generic" shape (with sub-options, so you could get the "flying" wildshape, the "spying" one or the "tanky" one) that you can choose how it looks.

[1] More like find familiar, which gives an explicit list of options than Conjure animals, which only specifies (and that loosely) CR/number.

[LudicSavant]

Well, first thing is that Wizards aren't the only ones who can Wish Simulacrum loop. For instance, Bards and Arcana Clerics can do it too.

Second thing is that the Simulacrum pops out with the spell slots and preparations that you have at the moment you made it (supported by Sage Advice). They don't need to prepare new spells, even if they were created by a Wizard.

Third thing is what Anymage said: As a general principle, don't try to fix broken rules by fiddly and strained reinterpretations of the RAW. Just accept that they're broken and houserule them properly.

[noob]

So I have been familiar with the cast simulacrum (S) and have your S use wish to cast another S cheese for a while. I have read this in forums for a while and thought, “what wonderfully evil cheese to bestow on some unsuspecting DM”. I would never use it though as I’m sure it is the illustration given after the definition of “broken cheese” in the “MinMaxers Lexicon of Everything: 5th Edition”. However, I decided to look it up recently for myself. I was kind of surprised by what I saw though. It seems it’s not as “efficient” as I thought it was. I apologize if someone else has spotted this and has mentioned it, but I have not seen this commented anywhere.
So the problem isn’t if the mechanics work or not. It seems to do just that. It’s just no where near as efficient as it has been propagated to be, as far as I’m reading anyway. If I’m wrong, please let me know.
So efficiency. It’s just very time constricting and expensive. I mean real world? Sure do it anyway. In game? You’re gonna need a lot of downtime. Now I know wish makes any spell it substitutes for, one action and removes expensive components. So that’s not the issue. The issue is 2 fold; one from the spell description and the other from the PHB.
1. This line in the spell description presents a problem for making a lot of S real quick.
“[The simulacrum] appears to be the same as the original… and is formed without any Equipment.” This means your S does not have its own spell book. This is a problem because…
2. …of this line of text from p.114 in the PHB.
“ Preparing a new list of wizard spells requires time spent studying YOUR spellbook and memorizing the incantations and gestures you must make to cast the spell: at least 1 minute per spell level for each spell on your list.”
Your S needs a spell book of its own to prepare spells. That means a lot of time and money to copy your spell book for it. If you only have the number of spells that you would have gained from leveling (meaning never adding other spells that you found) and you copy all of them, at level 17, the earliest for 9th level spells, you would have to spend 166 hours to copy one of your books and 1,660 gp (if my math is wrong, feel free to free to correct me but assumed 8 level one spells at class level 2 and adding 2 spells per class level for the highest possible spell level). If you do the minimum to make the cheese work, copy just wish, then that’s still 9 hours and 90 gp. Nowhere near as bad. But it kind of defeats the purpose of having an army of S if they can’t cast spells. So they need spells. As far as I can see, they should be able to prepare spells as long as they haven’t used up the slot (can’t gain “new abilities” in spell description doesn’t seem to prevent preparing spells to me). So it seems like they will still have to use a copy of your spellbook cuz they can’t use yours. But wait. If they can’t use yours, then you can’t make a copy for them using the same mechanics. It’s just like finding a new spell book in a dungeon. They will have to make their own copy which takes WAY MORE time and costs A LOT more gold as they are copying from someone else’s book. Now, it does state that you can copy your own cuz you know your own spells and have worked out the details already, etc. So maybe a DM would say it’s the same for the S as he is a copy. Then again, it says it’s partially real and obeys your commands and a lot of other text that makes it clear it is not you nor a true clone. Sounds like it needs its own book to prepare its own spells with its own remaining spell slots.
Anyway, that is what I’m getting from this. Again, if someone has mentioned this before I apologize that I haven’t seen it. Also if I’m wrong in something, again, I would like to know that. Sometimes I wish I could get the ear of some of the bigger optimizer names to see what they have to say, like treantmonk, but my little post won’t get that much exposure. Ha. Anyway, just something I wanted to share.
Simulacrums can not prepare spells at all nor ever regain spells so spellbooks are not quite relevant.
Either they get spells and start with them or they never ever get spells(which could be a valid interpretation of simulacrum in case of wizard copies), it is binary.

[nickl_2000]

Mine isn't easy because the DM said that a huge rock would smash them all of you tried to pull that junk. A coffeelock would also explode from excessive caffeine intake. (or you know he just said "please don't do that" and we being friends said "okay")

[meandean]

Simulacrums can not prepare spells at all nor ever regain spells so spellbooks are not quite relevant.
Either they get spells and start with them or they never ever get spells(which could be a valid interpretation of simulacrum in case of wizard copies), it is binary.Great point, and you have the politeness to offer a potential counterargument and not dismiss it, when you should have IMHO. I don't think it's really much of a viable interpretation to say that the spell essentially doesn't do anything useful?? Obviously the entire point of a Wizard (and it's the only class that actually has it on its list...) simulacrum is that it can cast spells. What would it be for otherwise? Just to fool people? It's a 7th-level spell.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Great point, and you have the politeness to offer a potential counterargument that doesn't even work. I don't think it's really much of a viable interpretation to say that the spell essentially doesn't do anything useful?? Obviously the entire point of a Wizard (and it's the only class that actually has it on its list...) simulacrum is that it can cast spells. What would it be for otherwise? Just to fool people? It's a 7th-level spell.

You can cast it on other people, you know. Like the fighter, or the king (to have a puppet, for instance).

[noob]

Great point, and you have the politeness to offer a potential counterargument that doesn't even work. I don't think it's really much of a viable interpretation to say that the spell essentially doesn't do anything useful?? Obviously the entire point of a Wizard (and it's the only class that actually has it on its list...) simulacrum is that it can cast spells. What would it be for otherwise? Just to fool people? It's a 7th-level spell.

A wizard could also cast it on a bard: bards do not need to prepare spells.(edited: bards are the masters of the universe, forget non bards)

[animorte]

As a DM I would not combat this by doing as you stated. I would just tell them, “break my game with stupid combos and I will ask you to stop playing. I don’t throw cheese at yall. Any of my villains can do the same thing you are doing. And a whole lot more. Play nice and we can all have fun.”

My approach is similar in a way. I allow lot of little different and cool things. I don’t mind, but I have also warned (and proven) that if you intend to abuse the game for power, just remember that I can do the same.

[PhoenixPhyre]

My approach is similar in a way. I allow lot of little different and cool things. I don’t mind, but I have also warned (and proven) that if you intend to abuse the game for power, just remember that I can do the same.

Personally, the existence of settings that haven't devolved into simulacrum shenanigans destroying everything implies one of two things
a) the settings are all just garbage
b) something not explicitly written in the rules actually makes that a non-starter.

I lean towards b (although many of the settings are garbage, but not for that reason). The game rules of magic =/= the fictional rules. So I'd say that shenanigans that put the setting's integrity at risk are just off limits period, for everyone. And each setting needs to decide what shenanigans those are for themselves.

[kbob]

Great point, and you have the politeness to offer a potential counterargument and not dismiss it, when you should have IMHO. I don't think it's really much of a viable interpretation to say that the spell essentially doesn't do anything useful?? Obviously the entire point of a Wizard (and it's the only class that actually has it on its list...) simulacrum is that it can cast spells. What would it be for otherwise? Just to fool people? It's a 7th-level spell.
I don’t see in simulacrum that you cannot prepare spells. I think that gets assumed by reading into what it does say the S can’t do; it cannot regain spent spell slots.
Maybe the line that it cannot gain any new abilities can be used for this. I don’t know. I tend to think not. That line is in the same sentence and context of gaining more power while leveling. So I’m not saying nor suggesting it doesn’t do anything useful. I’m just S the pseudo-clone has to prepare spell the same as it’s creator. It just cannot get spell slots back when they’re gone.
Now I was not aware of sage advise saying it would have the spells prepared of the casting wizard. I’m sure he has good points to make for it. But then again, sage advice is not cannon. It may all be the correct interpretation. I’m just saying, as written an argument can be made for the other. I think I lean that way too. I may be wrong and it would not be the first time. But I’m not convinced currently.

[kbob]

So I'd say that shenanigans that put the setting's integrity at risk are just off limits period, for everyone. And each setting needs to decide what shenanigans those are for themselves.

This is a good response. We have pretty said the same in our group. It’s impossible for the game designers to figure every loophole that can be exploited. They are using real word language to describe something fantastical and supernatural all while trying to keep it compressed into a couple of paragraphs. Exploits are going to happen. And they more open ended and amazing the ability, the more damage to a game it can do. People just need to set expectations before they start playing. This is not to say playing such cheese is “wrong”. If you’re group is for it (including DM) and you get a lot of laughs out of the absurdity, have a blast. I’ve been in groups like that, and had a blast. Some Of the best laughs I had were in games like that. But those groups have never lasted long (in my experience) or they have to do some kind of reset on characters and power cuz it’s too out of hand to take serious for any length of time. Again, just my experience.
I think most groups will just say, “ummm no. That is out of bounds. “shenanigans that put the setting's integrity at risk are just off limits”

[animorte]

The game rules of magic =/= the fictional rules. So I'd say that shenanigans that put the setting's integrity at risk are just off limits period, for everyone. And each setting needs to decide what shenanigans those are for themselves.

This is essentially what we arrived at as well. There’s no point in abusing game breaking mechanics when only one person might be having fun. We love shenanigans when everyone can have fun.

[Chronos]

The problem with a gentlemen's agreement to not do that is that for any broken thing you can think of, there are a whole lot of very similar things that aren't quite as broken, and where precisely do you draw the line? Drawing precise lines is the domain of rules, not of gentlemen's agreements.

[Keravath]

Ya I think you’re correct with the first para. I think that is the idea. But I don’t see that being the case personally. At best it’s inferred. At worst, “wishful” thinking.

I like your response in your second para. I think if I come across a player attempting this (my players usually know broken stuff don’t fly with me though) I’ll try this argument as a first line.

If your suggestion is based on the simulacrum being formed without spells then that is incorrect.

"It appears to be the same as the original, but it has half the creature's hit point maximum and is formed without any equipment. Otherwise, the illusion uses all the statistics of the creature it duplicates, except that it is a construct."

The simulacrum explicitly has ALL the statistics of the creature it duplicates. Spell prepared ARE part of a creatures stat block/statistics.

A DM is free to homebrew it otherwise but if you are homebrewing it anyway the easiest way to still allow the spell is to say that you can only ever have one simulacrum at a time.

[noob]

The simulacrum explicitly has ALL the statistics of the creature it duplicates. Spell prepared ARE part of a creatures stat block/statistics.


No monsters in dnd monster manuals have any prepared spell lists.
The only monsters that could get one would be wizards made with pc rules but there is no clear indication of what must be put in a pc rule made monster's statblock.

[stoutstien]

The problem with a gentlemen's agreement to not do that is that for any broken thing you can think of, there are a whole lot of very similar things that aren't quite as broken, and where precisely do you draw the line? Drawing precise lines is the domain of rules, not of gentlemen's agreements.

5e is basically one giant gentleman's agreement. Everything is subjective to individual DM/table culture .

[BoutsofInsanity]

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

As a reminder, on page 7 per Adventurers league they can't duplicate.

Whether or not people want to use adventurer's league stuff is another question entirely.

[Gignere]

No monsters in dnd monster manuals have any prepared spell lists.
The only monsters that could get one would be wizards made with pc rules but there is no clear indication of what must be put in a pc rule made monster's statblock.

The archmage NPC specifically has prepared spells in their statblock.

[KorvinStarmast]

The problem with a gentlemen's agreement to not do that is that for any broken thing you can think of, there are a whole lot of very similar things that aren't quite as broken, and where precisely do you draw the line? Figure it out as it comes up, like people do, by having a discussion and coming to an agreement. RPGs are a social activity, which creates the implied task of git gud at social skils.

Drawing precise lines is the domain of rules, not of gentlemen's agreements.
For golf or chess? Yes.
For D&D, no.

The archmage NPC specifically has prepared spells in their statblock. Also the Mage and the archdruid (Volo's).
:smallsmile:

[NotPrior]

Personally, the existence of settings that haven't devolved into simulacrum shenanigans destroying everything implies one of two things
a) the settings are all just garbage
b) something not explicitly written in the rules actually makes that a non-starter.

I lean towards b (although many of the settings are garbage, but not for that reason). The game rules of magic =/= the fictional rules. So I'd say that shenanigans that put the setting's integrity at risk are just off limits period, for everyone. And each setting needs to decide what shenanigans those are for themselves.

Oh, related to this, I remember reading a long time ago (maybe in an AD&D book?) that the softer a golem's material the more likely it is to go rogue. Flesh golems are worst, clay golems are bad, stone are pretty reliable etc.

So in the vein of that I decided that when you're making what are essentially hyper-buffed golems out of snow you are inviting disaster. One tends to work. The second one tends to have nervous ticks and might snap under pressure. The third will instantly try to kill you.

That's worked to prevent simulacrum spam so far.