How Many Houserules Does 5E Need?

[charcoalninja]

Sure. Right up until the game actually starts. Then it's an NPC that the DM controls. Friendly and obeys orders =/= under your complete control.



Don't be rude. If you don't want it at your table, then ban it and you problem is solved. At my table, if a player wants to waste their resources turning a nearly perfect infiltrator/spy/decoy into cannon fodder, I'm not going to stop them.

I still literally cannot fathom where you're coming from here and how you can claim one character becoming 2 as their level 13 feature is a) no big deal and b) remotely comparable to what any other class gets.

Sim is quite possibly the most powerful spell in the game. The cost is peanuts and the versatility of the spell as deep as the game itself.

Even 3.5, the brokenest edition under the sun knew to only make simulacrum half strength!

[JNAProductions]

I'm assuming optimal skeleton placement, so a circle.

Of course, realistically, this is what happens. The dragon dives down, breathes its breath, then backs up to Long range on the shortbow, multiplying the damage by .15 again. Which is 9.6 damage per round.

[jas61292]

I'm afb, whats the limitations and aoe on your ancient wyrm breath, and how many time can it use its legendary / lair action in a round?

Well, I know a Ancient Red has a breath cone of 90 feet, which if used from above is a 90 foot diameter (45 ft radius) circle, which is enormous.

Legendary actions are 3 per round at the end of any other creature's turn. And lair actions, if they even have them, are 1 per round at initiative 20.

[georgie_leech]

I still literally cannot fathom where you're coming from here and how you can claim one character becoming 2 as their level 13 feature is a) no big deal and b) remotely comparable to what any other class gets.

Sim is quite possibly the most powerful spell in the game. The cost is peanuts and the versatility of the spell as deep as the game itself.

Even 3.5, the brokenest edition under the sun knew to only make simulacrum half strength!

Because "loyal and follows orders" =/= "You get to play it." Which part of the spell implies you make decisions for it the same way you would your character?

[krugaan]

Well, I know a Ancient Red has a breath cone of 90 feet, which if used from above is a 90 foot diameter (45 ft radius) circle, which is enormous.

Legendary actions are 3 per round at the end of any other creature's turn. And lair actions, if they even have them, are 1 per round at initiative 20.

That's a good point. So the dragon flies up, in the middle of the circle, the skeletons have to collapse the circle to get their attacks in, at which point the dragon can wipe them all out in one breath.

[JoeJ]

I still literally cannot fathom where you're coming from here and how you can claim one character becoming 2 as their level 13 feature is a) no big deal and b) remotely comparable to what any other class gets.

Sim is quite possibly the most powerful spell in the game. The cost is peanuts and the versatility of the spell as deep as the game itself.

Even 3.5, the brokenest edition under the sun knew to only make simulacrum half strength!

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that 1) you only play combat as sport, and 2) you assume the player, rather than the DM, controls everything their character conjures/animates/hires/adopts/etc.?

[Shaofoo]

The cost is peanuts

To be fair the cost can be insurmountable since the DM can ban rubies and thus you'll have no way to cast the spell till level 17 where you could Wish for ruby dust (and risk losing the ability to cast Wish forever) or just Wish the spell itself (which for Simulacrum chains is useless).

I just want to tear down this view that somehow spells can be cast by throwing gold coins in lieu of expensive material components. No need to find a diamond to resurrect your friend, just chuck a large sack of gold, it is the same thing.

[BayardSPSR]

To be fair the cost can be insurmountable since the DM can ban rubies and thus you'll have no way to cast the spell till level 17 where you could Wish for ruby dust (and risk losing the ability to cast Wish forever) or just Wish the spell itself (which for Simulacrum chains is useless).

I just want to tear down this view that somehow spells can be cast by throwing gold coins in lieu of expensive material components. No need to find a diamond to resurrect your friend, just chuck a large sack of gold, it is the same thing.

Well, realistically, the rare diamonds/rubies are, the more expensive they'll be and the fewer you'll need as components... if not for the fact that D&D has unrealistic fixed prices for things. It's one of those funny things that only works because of other rules being (in my view, which I don't expect others to necessarily agree on) silly, and (again, for me) tends to turn every edition of D&D into absurdities stack on absurdities on a foundation of absurdities.

Which is often fun to play with when you suspend disbelief, of course.

[smcmike]

Well, realistically, the rare diamonds/rubies are, the more expensive they'll be and the fewer you'll need as components... if not for the fact that D&D has unrealistic fixed prices for things. It's one of those funny things that only works because of other rules being (in my view, which I don't expect others to necessarily agree on) silly, and (again, for me) tends to turn every edition of D&D into absurdities stack on absurdities on a foundation of absurdities.

Which is often fun to play with when you suspend disbelief, of course.

Hmm, if you ignore the fixed prices for gemstones and use your idea, there's another way to go - rubies are considered rubish stones in the setting, and so 1500 gp worth of them is like 1500 tons. That changes things a bit.

[Malifice]

Because "loyal and follows orders" =/= "You get to play it." Which part of the spell implies you make decisions for it the same way you would your character?

So much this. The spell creates a 'friendly creature that follows your orders'.

The DM determines how it interprets those orders, and if it stays friendly to you. nothing in the spell states the Simulacrum remains friendly to you, or states the simulacrum cant use initiative in determining how to carry out those orders. Nothing states the simulacrum cant come to resent the casters control over it either.

If the one cannonical example of a simulacrim (Iggwilvs simulacrum in return to Castle Greyhawk) is any guide, they most certainly can twist orders, seek to break free from their creators control, and resent their creator.

[charcoalninja]

Because "loyal and follows orders" =/= "You get to play it." Which part of the spell implies you make decisions for it the same way you would your character?

Gee I don't know, because it's a gorram copy of my character and so thinks and acts as I would except it follows all of my orders?

And I don't have to control the stupid thing for it to immediately make my character better in every way than the Fighter. A "be my bodyguard and defend my life with your own" style order means I have a guy as powerful as me helping me to the best of their abilities in all fights that unlike hirelings doesn't suck down exp or require any sweet talking to follow orders exactly.

Also, stop with the rubies nonsense. If you go that route, you are, as I suggested house ruling to control the spell which you need to do to keep the game working in the manner it is supposed to.

A party of a Paladin, Cleric, Rogue and Fighter are supposedly as capable as one that is Wizard, Fighter, Rogue, Cleric and the reality is that the first group is not, because the second actually has a 5th member it can switch out whenever it wants that doesn't change the exp rewards or demand loot.

[JoeJ]

And I don't have to control the stupid thing for it to immediately make my character better in every way than the Fighter. A "be my bodyguard and defend my life with your own" style order means I have a guy as powerful as me helping me to the best of their abilities in all fights that unlike hirelings doesn't suck down exp or require any sweet talking to follow orders exactly.

The fighter laughs at you from his elephant. Since you have a bodyguard now, he's free to charge into battle without having to worry about keeping the enemy away from your squishy body any longer.

[NewDM]

Because "loyal and follows orders" =/= "You get to play it." Which part of the spell implies you make decisions for it the same way you would your character?

The part where its an exact copy of you.

DM "The hall splits here."
Player "Me and my simulacrum go separate ways."
DM "You don't control your simulacrum."
Player "Ok, I tell my simulacrum to go the other way."
DM "Incidentally, how would your character react to walking into a gelatinous cube? From a purely theoretical perspective."

To be fair the cost can be insurmountable since the DM can ban rubies and thus you'll have no way to cast the spell till level 17 where you could Wish for ruby dust (and risk losing the ability to cast Wish forever) or just Wish the spell itself (which for Simulacrum chains is useless).

I just want to tear down this view that somehow spells can be cast by throwing gold coins in lieu of expensive material components. No need to find a diamond to resurrect your friend, just chuck a large sack of gold, it is the same thing.

Yes, when the DM gives you a spell (or lets you take up one of your spells known) and then flat out tells you that you can't use it? I'd not return to that game, where if the DM just banned the spell I'd be more likely to return.

I believe the term "dickery" was used.

So much this. The spell creates a 'friendly creature that follows your orders'.

The DM determines how it interprets those orders, and if it stays friendly to you. nothing in the spell states the Simulacrum remains friendly to you, or states the simulacrum cant use initiative in determining how to carry out those orders. Nothing states the simulacrum cant come to resent the casters control over it either.

If the one cannonical example of a simulacrim (Iggwilvs simulacrum in return to Castle Greyhawk) is any guide, they most certainly can twist orders, seek to break free from their creators control, and resent their creator.

If the simulacrum is a copy of your character then you as that character determine what the simulacrum does. Otherwise the DM is going to be playing "Player may I?" by asking what you would do in situations. It gets a little weird.

The fighter laughs at you from his elephant. Since you have a bodyguard now, he's free to charge into battle without having to worry about keeping the enemy away from your squishy body any longer.

The Wizard laughs at your elephant while True Polymorphed into a dragon.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Because "loyal and follows orders" =/= "You get to play it." Which part of the spell implies you make decisions for it the same way you would your character?

That's been pretty standard practice at every table I've ever played at. I know that I don't want to deal with any more creatures in combat than I already have to; DMing is complicated enough without having to run a swarm of summons and a wizard clone. To say nothing of the irritation and time-wasting-ness of rolling against myself. It's even worse outside of a fight, when I have to talk to myself. If I want to do that I'll send my players home and start writing prose.

[Grod_The_Giant]

To be fair the cost can be insurmountable since the DM can ban rubies and thus you'll have no way to cast the spell till level 17 where you could Wish for ruby dust (and risk losing the ability to cast Wish forever) or just Wish the spell itself (which for Simulacrum chains is useless).

Uh, yeah. That's the same thing as a ban. Except that you're being passive-aggresive about it instead of saying "hey, I don't like this spell."

[JoeJ]

The Wizard laughs at your elephant while True Polymorphed into a dragon.

The fighter laughs even harder at the drunk wizard who thinks he can cast True Polymorph at 13th level.

[NewDM]

The fighter laughs even harder at the drunk wizard who thinks he can cast True Polymorph at 13th level.

If its 13th level then they just use Modify Memory to make the Fighter think its the Wizards mount.

[JoeJ]

If its 13th level then they just use Modify Memory to make the Fighter think its the Wizards mount.

The silly wizard has obviously used Modify Memory on himself, and forgotten what his own spells do.

[Pex]

A rule is something that has been established since the beginning of the game by the DM (X is banned, Y is changed, Z is added) while interpretation is just how the DM reads it (You say Potato I say Tuber). Both change how the game is played, if a house rule doesn't change the game then it is worthless as a house rule.

No. A rule is what's published in the rulebook. A house rule is a DM or gaming group changing said rule to something more to their liking (general play or necessary for that particular campaign.) For any system, if you just have to house rule almost everything to suit your liking you're better off just using a different system altogether or create your own. Given you're going to use a set of rules of a published system, a house rule therefore is only going to tweak specific and particular instances that's few in number compared to the number of all rules in the system. 5E's design choice is not to give rules for many things or be vague in their meaning forcing the DM or gaming group to come up with their own way of doing things. Some people like that and some don't, and particular individuals are offended by and being condescending to those who don't.

[Shaofoo]

Yes, when the DM gives you a spell (or lets you take up one of your spells known) and then flat out tells you that you can't use it? I'd not return to that game, where if the DM just banned the spell I'd be more likely to return.

I believe the term "dickery" was used.

I am actually extremely surprised you'd say that.

I said multiple times that I am more than willing to play it straight and ban the spell but I just wanted to show that there is a way to limit or curb the spell without getting into the dreaded house rule territory, it is the nuclear option but the option exists.

Also the DM doesn't have to give you the spell, as a Wizard you are entitled to learning any 2 spells on a level that you have a spell slot per level up. You can learn Simulacrum without the DM wanting you, you can even learn Wish on your own; there is nothing that says you can't learn a spell outside of a house rule but the rules can limit certain spells to the DM's discretion.

Uh, yeah. That's the same thing as a ban. Except that you're being passive-aggresive about it instead of saying "hey, I don't like this spell."

I said before, it was the benefit of not having to deal into the dreaded house rule territory, I said many times I would ban the spell instead. And I said before that there might be rubies but the amount is very limited so you can only have a certain number of clones or even other spells that use rubies before you are done, that is with all expensive used material components. Like I said before it is to stop thinking that expensive material components and gold coins being interchangeable, it might not be a ban but you might not be able to find as much gemstones as you could potentially buy.

If its 13th level then they just use Modify Memory to make the Fighter think its the Wizards mount.

That doesn't work the way you think it works. Modify Memory only changes memories of an event (up to 10 minutes) to whatever you want. The best you are going to give him is an apparent impromptu 10 minute BDSM session and a sudden desire for a fetish that he might or might not have.

[JoeJ]

Uh, yeah. That's the same thing as a ban. Except that you're being passive-aggresive about it instead of saying "hey, I don't like this spell."

Yes. If you don't want the spell at your table, just remove it. Not only is that more honest, it creates the fewest problems with other aspects of the world. If the spells exist and PCs can learn them, the material components should be available (which is not to say that it won't necessarily require an occasional side quest to obtain one of the rarer ones).

That doesn't work the way you think it works. Modify Memory only changes memories of an event (up to 10 minutes) to whatever you want. The best you are going to give him is an apparent impromptu 10 minute BDSM session and a sudden desire for a fetish that he might or might not have.

While undeniably funny, I don't have any friends I want to role play that scenario with.

[Shaofoo]

No. A rule is what's published in the rulebook. A house rule is a DM or gaming group changing said rule to something more to their liking (general play or necessary for that particular campaign.) For any system, if you just have to house rule almost everything to suit your liking you're better off just using a different system altogether or create your own. Given you're going to use a set of rules of a published system, a house rule therefore is only going to tweak specific and particular instances that's few in number compared to the number of all rules in the system. 5E's design choice is not to give rules for many things or be vague in their meaning forcing the DM or gaming group to come up with their own way of doing things. Some people like that and some don't, and particular individuals are offended by and being condescending to those who don't.

I don't see what part of the game there are rules lacking. Some part of the rules does need DM interpretation because it is literally impossible to actually make rules (can you make a codified rule as to how an illusion can fool someone?).

I can't think of something that there are no rules that the game just didn't account for in the first place. Even skill DCs does have rules written.

[Pex]

So much this. The spell creates a 'friendly creature that follows your orders'.

The DM determines how it interprets those orders, and if it stays friendly to you. nothing in the spell states the Simulacrum remains friendly to you, or states the simulacrum cant use initiative in determining how to carry out those orders. Nothing states the simulacrum cant come to resent the casters control over it either.

If the one cannonical example of a simulacrim (Iggwilvs simulacrum in return to Castle Greyhawk) is any guide, they most certainly can twist orders, seek to break free from their creators control, and resent their creator.

That argument is not being fair. Could be I'm mixing threads as they blend together to the same concepts, but this point is nagging me. If a player cannot use the excuse of "the rules don't say I can't" to justify some absurd way of doing something, then neither can the DM use it to punish a player for using a class ability as it's written. If we're to presume a DM is not being tyrannical then he shouldn't being using passive aggressive tactics like, say, preventing a player from acquiring ruby dust, and just state upfront he has a problem with the spell Simulacrum and wants to discuss the matter on what to do about it.

[Sigreid]

So much this. The spell creates a 'friendly creature that follows your orders'.

The DM determines how it interprets those orders, and if it stays friendly to you. nothing in the spell states the Simulacrum remains friendly to you, or states the simulacrum cant use initiative in determining how to carry out those orders. Nothing states the simulacrum cant come to resent the casters control over it either.

If the one cannonical example of a simulacrim (Iggwilvs simulacrum in return to Castle Greyhawk) is any guide, they most certainly can twist orders, seek to break free from their creators control, and resent their creator.

IMO if you intend to use the simulacra just as an excuse to screw with the casting player you should just make it unavailable to begin with.

The Simulacra is defined as knowing what the caster knew when the spell was cast. It therefore knows not only that it is a magical mockery of life that cannot grow or recover spent power (at least caster power), if you created it to wish for fire resistance for the party, it comes into being knowing exactly what you want and doesn't have room to interpret it another way.

Again, if I were a player in a campaign where the DM had such a mad on for a particular spell, I'd rather they just be up front and say "I'm not allowing this one in my world." Same could apply to wish, possibly even saying "Only Djinn and Efreet nobles can grant wishes and it costs them dearly so they are not fond of doing so."

[mgshamster]

That argument is not being fair. Could be I'm mixing threads as they blend together to the same concepts, but this point is nagging me. If a player cannot use the excuse of "the rules don't say I can't" to justify some absurd way of doing something, then neither can the DM use it to punish a player for using a class ability as it's written. If we're to presume a DM is not being tyrannical then he shouldn't being using passive aggressive tactics like, say, preventing a player from acquiring ruby dust, and just state upfront he has a problem with the spell Simulacrum and wants to discuss the matter on what to do about it.

I'm fairly certain that every single person who has suggested the dearth of ruby dust has also said they'd rather just ban it upfront. However, the insistence on RAW has changed the argument to "you can't ban it because that's a house rule, so come up with something else."

Those people have come up with something else, and now they're being criticized for being passive aggressive, "they should have just banned it to begin with."

We're now criticizing people for doing something and not doing something at the same time. Catch 22.

[2D8HP]

Fellow playgrounders, with the DEEPEST HUMILITY, having done the EXTENSIVE RESEARCH (reading forum threads, looking in the PHB to see if the SIMUwhatsit spell was in there, and a Wikipedia article at lunch), and having the CREDENTIALS (within the space of a year I saw the Hobbit cartoon on channel 5 without missing any of it to go to the bathroom, I looked at the Dungeons and Dragons box at the toystore in the mall, and saw Stars Wars the most times of everyone in 5th grade, no way did Ben see it 15 times, where are the ticket stubs huh?) to answer the conundrum asked in this thread (just sayin').
Because:
1) It has been shown.that 750 light crossbow wielding guards have a fair chance against a 20th level Wizard.
2) A 20th level Wizard is so infused with awesome that they can take on an Ancient Red Dragon using the SIMUwhatsit spell, causing the DM to declare "rocks fall everybody dies" including said Wizard and Dragon.
3) Longbow archers beat the stuffing out of Crossbowmen especially just after it rains, and they don't need to waste a stinkin' feat neither!
I have therefore concluded that one Longbow archer has a fair chance to defeat an Ancient Red Dragon provided there is a Wizard near who looks suspiciously like Dave Arneson the co-creator of D&D on the left side of the box, and that an archer will definitely defeat the said Dragon if he listens to the talking bird.
However without the Wizard Dave or the advice of the talking bird, then no amount of archers can prevail against the Awesome Dragon and Laketown is toast.
-YOUR WELCOME
(I must now leave to continue my vital research on the artistic representation of Hot Drow at the Dungeons and Dreamboats thread).

[Temperjoke]

Fellow playgrounders, with the DEEPEST HUMILITY, having done the EXTENSIVE RESEARCH (reading forum threads, looking in the PHB to see if the SIMUwhatsit spell was in there, and a Wikipedia article at lunch), and having the CREDENTIALS (within the space of a year I saw the Hobbit cartoon on channel 5 without missing any of it to go to the bathroom, I looked at the Dungeons and Dragons box at the toystore in the mall, and saw Stars Wars the most times of everyone in 5th grade, no way did Ben see it 15 times, where are the ticket stubs huh?) to answer the conundrum asked in this thread (just sayin').
Because:
1) It has been shown.that 750 light crossbow wielding guards have a fair chance against a 20th level Wizard.
2) A 20th level Wizard is so infused with awesome that they can take on an Ancient Red Dragon using the SIMUwhatsit spell, causing the DM to declare "rocks fall everybody dies" including said Wizard and Dragon.
3) Longbow archers beat the stuffing out of Crossbowmen especially just after it rains, and they don't need to waste a stinkin' feat neither!
I have therefore concluded that one Longbow archer has a fair chance to defeat an Ancient Red Dragon provided there is a Wizard near who looks suspiciously like Dave Arneson the co-creator of D&D on the left side of the box, and that an archer will definitely defeat the said Dragon if he listens to the talking bird.
However without the Wizard Dave or the advice of the talking bird, then no amount of archers can prevail against the Awesome Dragon and Laketown is toast.
-YOUR WELCOME
(I must now leave to continue my vital research on the artistic representation of Hot Drow at the Dungeons and Dreamboats thread).

Pfft, the longbow archer has no need of wizards to take out an Ancient Red Dragon. Also, while the bird spoke to him, he understood it's language, it didn't speak to him in common. God, it's like you didn't even read the guide.

[NewDM]

I am actually extremely surprised you'd say that.

I said multiple times that I am more than willing to play it straight and ban the spell but I just wanted to show that there is a way to limit or curb the spell without getting into the dreaded house rule territory, it is the nuclear option but the option exists.

Yes, well as long as everyone agrees that simulacrum needs a house rule, that was the point of the discussion. It was some stubborn people that tried to get rid of it by twisting their game world into a pretzel to avoid it.

If everyone can just admit that Simulacrum and Wish need house rules we can move on to some of the other broken parts of the game.

Also the DM doesn't have to give you the spell, as a Wizard you are entitled to learning any 2 spells on a level that you have a spell slot per level up. You can learn Simulacrum without the DM wanting you, you can even learn Wish on your own; there is nothing that says you can't learn a spell outside of a house rule but the rules can limit certain spells to the DM's discretion.

Yes, but when the DM says you can't use the spell after you've chosen it. That's known as bad DMing. Similar to:

Player "Ok, I now have a +17 in using thieves' tools, I'm gonna destroy those locks!"
DM "There are no locks in my world, instead there are living doors that open of their own accord. You must persuade them to open now."

I said before, it was the benefit of not having to deal into the dreaded house rule territory, I said many times I would ban the spell instead. And I said before that there might be rubies but the amount is very limited so you can only have a certain number of clones or even other spells that use rubies before you are done, that is with all expensive used material components. Like I said before it is to stop thinking that expensive material components and gold coins being interchangeable, it might not be a ban but you might not be able to find as much gemstones as you could potentially buy.

Yes, so if we can all admit its broken and needs a house rule we can move on, since that is the point of the thread. I'd take a fast house rule over a Plot Pretzel^tm any day.

That doesn't work the way you think it works. Modify Memory only changes memories of an event (up to 10 minutes) to whatever you want. The best you are going to give him is an apparent impromptu 10 minute BDSM session and a sudden desire for a fetish that he might or might not have.

Actually you might want to look at the 'At higher levels' part. 6th is 7 days ago, 7th is 30 days,

I'm fairly certain that every single person who has suggested the dearth of ruby dust has also said they'd rather just ban it upfront. However, the insistence on RAW has changed the argument to "you can't ban it because that's a house rule, so come up with something else."

Those people have come up with something else, and now they're being criticized for being passive aggressive, "they should have just banned it to begin with."

We're now criticizing people for doing something and not doing something at the same time. Catch 22.

When you have to twist the game into a Plot Pretzel so badly to prevent one spell from ruining the game you are better off just making a house rule. If everyone can admit its broken enough to warrant a house rule we can move on.

Fellow playgrounders, with the DEEPEST HUMILITY, having done the EXTENSIVE RESEARCH (reading forum threads, looking in the PHB to see if the SIMUwhatsit spell was in there, and a Wikipedia article at lunch), and having the CREDENTIALS (within the space of a year I saw the Hobbit cartoon on channel 5 without missing any of it to go to the bathroom, I looked at the Dungeons and Dragons box at the toystore in the mall, and saw Stars Wars the most times of everyone in 5th grade, no way did Ben see it 15 times, where are the ticket stubs huh?) to answer the conundrum asked in this thread (just sayin').
Because:
1) It has been shown.that 750 light crossbow wielding guards have a fair chance against a 20th level Wizard.
2) A 20th level Wizard is so infused with awesome that they can take on an Ancient Red Dragon using the SIMUwhatsit spell, causing the DM to declare "rocks fall everybody dies" including said Wizard and Dragon.
3) Longbow archers beat the stuffing out of Crossbowmen especially just after it rains, and they don't need to waste a stinkin' feat neither!
I have therefore concluded that one Longbow archer has a fair chance to defeat an Ancient Red Dragon provided there is a Wizard near who looks suspiciously like Dave Arneson the co-creator of D&D on the left side of the box, and that an archer will definitely defeat the said Dragon if he listens to the talking bird.
However without the Wizard Dave or the advice of the talking bird, then no amount of archers can prevail against the Awesome Dragon and Laketown is toast.
-YOUR WELCOME
(I must now leave to continue my vital research on the artistic representation of Hot Drow at the Dungeons and Dreamboats thread).

I'm interested in um... critiquing art, so if you can provide a link to that thread, I'd appreciate it.

[JoeJ]

If everyone can just admit that Simulacrum and Wish need house rules we can move on to some of the other broken parts of the game.

I'm not aware of anybody ever arguing that the combination of Simulacrum & Wish didn't need something, although whether deciding to run them by RAI instead of RAW is enough of a change to count as a "house rule" might be debatable.

[NewDM]

I'm not aware of anybody ever arguing that the combination of Simulacrum & Wish didn't need something, although whether deciding to run them by RAI instead of RAW is enough of a change to count as a "house rule" might be debatable.

So your answer is no then? Sigh, I guess we need to argue about Plot Pretzels^tm for another 3 pages.