How powerful is a level 20 Wizard Simulacrum with no spell slots?

[Segev]

I think that, given the restriction on regaining spell slots, they probably intended it not to regain any other expended resources, but if that was their intent, they should have worded it more clearly. Which wouldn't even have been hard: "The simulacrum cannot benefit from rests.". And probably also "...and cannot regain HP in any other way", while we're at it.

But they didn't say that, so who knows, maybe they really did intend it to literally just be spell slots. That's what the RAW says. And while a DM ruling that they can't get any of the benefits of rest is a perfectly reasonable houserule, and one that I would probably implement if I were ever DMing it, it's still a houserule.

The RAW do not say "just...spell slots." You can try to argue that that's all the RAW apply to, but the RAW clearly are listing spell slots as one thing that not getting more powerful prevents them from recovering. It does not limit it to spell slots only.

I do agree that better wording would have been clearer.

[Chaos Jackal]

The RAW do not say "just...spell slots." You can try to argue that that's all the RAW apply to, but the RAW clearly are listing spell slots as one thing that not getting more powerful prevents them from recovering. It does not limit it to spell slots only.

I do agree that better wording would have been clearer.

You can say "clearly" all you want to, you know. Except if it was so clear, you probably wouldn't be arguing alone here for a page now.

Is there merit in the take that the simulacrum regains nothing? Certainly. Is it "clear", or the only interpretation? Hell no, and it's probably not the most obvious and likely one either.

[Bobthewizard]

I wouldn't say "clearly" either.

I read "it never increases its level or other abilities" to be the phrase that describes "lacks the ability to become more powerful", and then "nor can it regain expended spell slots" as a separate condition.

I think if they had meant for the simulacrum to not be able to regain short or long rest abilities, they should have had the last phrase say "nor can it regain expended spell slots or other abilities."

But I agree the wording is a mess, and a DM is free to interpret the last phrase as an example of one of many abilities that can't be regained. I don't think you can make a convincing argument either way for which is definitely RAW.

[Chronos]

The wording does certainly suggest that it applies to other things than just what they listed, but it's not at all clear that those other things include regaining other spent resources. And as soon as we find at least one other thing that it does apply to, the argument that "that's not all that it applies to" is expended. I think I would agree, for instance, that a simulacrum cannot benefit from one of those tomes that increases your ability scores. And it probably can't gain an acquired template like lycanthropy. So there we go, the "such as" means that they're including leveling up, stat tomes, and templates, not just the leveling up that they specifically mentioned.

[Segev]

It's a categorization problem. Are spell slots indicative of "resources," or are they indicative only of "spell slots," despite being framed in a way that indicates that they're an example, not an exhaustive list?

To me, the inability to regain spell slots being a thing they suffer due to being unable to become more powerful means that their state from which they cannot become more powerful must be continuously updated. It's not merely that their power is fixed at creation; it's that nothing can make them stronger than they are at any moment, leading to constant degradation with no way to recover from it, because recovering spell slots - and thus anything else - would be "becom[ing] more powerful."

Now, you can certainly read it to be much more limited, and as long as your reasoning is consistent as to why THIS thing is okay to recover while spell slots are not, you're within the RAW. But you have to have consistent reasoning, not just an arbitrary list (which "only spell slots can't be recovered" is, since if that were the exhaustive list, it would not say "so" rather than "which means" or something else that indicates that the "can't get more powerful" is limited to that narrow definition).

Certainly, it is an error to claim that the RAW explicitly limit what can't be regained to spell slots. They most certainly say no such thing.

Simulacrum is both overpowered in the short term and not useful in the medium and long term for purposes other than its overpowered ones precisely because these limits prevent it from use as long-term spies, infiltrators, replacements, or cons, but leave them as piles of extra resources and action economy for major fights.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Certainly, it is an error to claim that the RAW explicitly limit what can't be regained to spell slots. They most certainly say no such thing.

You quote the text where it says that they can't regain expended resources other than spell slots and when you do we can make statements about what is explicitly limited.

You do know what explicit means? Stated clearly in detail and without confusion or doubt? The only explicit limitations are that they can't level up or regain expended spell slots. "Cannot grow more powerful" and "cannot increase their other abilities" are not explicit statements, they're open ended and vague.

[KorvinStarmast]

It's a categorization problem. Are spell slots indicative of "resources,

Yes. This is D&D 5e. Spell slots are resources.

[Selion]

BTW reading this topic you produced an idea for a beautiful NPC with a sad story.

A residual illusion of a former great wizard who is living in a ghost town reproducing permanent material illusions of the memories of past times is a romantic design for a character.

EDIT: in the right campaign these illusions could give hints of events happened long time before. The simulacrum could even have kept for centuries that single spell slot to grant a wish to whoever would help them in a forgotten mission

[Segev]

You quote the text where it says that they can't regain expended resources other than spell slots and when you do we can make statements about what is explicitly limited.

You do know what explicit means? Stated clearly in detail and without confusion or doubt? The only explicit limitations are that they can't level up or regain expended spell slots. "Cannot grow more powerful" and "cannot increase their other abilities" are not explicit statements, they're open ended and vague.

It explicitly says it "lacks the ability into grow more powerful."

I am not sure how it explicitly saying that is not explicitly saying that.

[ProsecutorGodot]

It explicitly says it "lacks the ability into grow more powerful."

I am not sure how it explicitly saying that is not explicitly saying that.

Yes, but what does that mean? Are you "growing more powerful" by restoring yourself to the power you had when you were created? That's not becoming more powerful.

[Anymage]

It explicitly says it "lacks the ability into grow more powerful."

I am not sure how it explicitly saying that is not explicitly saying that.

A sim is explicitly created without any equipment. Picking up mundane equipment, never mind magical stuff, makes it more powerful and increases its abilities. That's just down to the fact that having a sword or component pouch is better than not having one.

That sort of strict legalist reading nerfs sim through an unintuitive and annoying interpretation of the rules. And not one I expect to see followed in practice most places. Especially when the "become more powerful" line makes perfect sense as its own clause preventing leveling, as well as oddball level-like growths like gaining proficiencies through studying over downtime.

[Reach Weapon]

I imagine if either of these sparks much debate, they'd be more properly their own threads, but...

RAW is words only.

RAW is also sentence structure and other natural off-shoots of writing.

Segev's arguments are grounded in what is written, and therefore appear to be a solidly RAW argument to me.

A sim is explicitly created without any equipment. [...] That's just down to the fact that having a sword or component pouch is better than not having one.

That sort of strict legalist reading nerfs sim through an unintuitive and annoying interpretation of the rules. And not one I expect to see followed in practice most places. [...]

With the minor quibble that the power is in the utilization, not the having, had this been the implementation of Simulacrum from the get go, I don't know that it wouldn't be considered a cool 7th level spell.

Sure, this would favor duplicates that can cast without material components and have natural weapons or armor, but absent history, I don't know that would be viewed as a huge flaw.

[Thunderous Mojo]

If one uses XGE Magic Item Creation, a spell slot-less Simulacrum could still create Magic Items depending upon their Tool Proficiencies.

A Simulacrum that had conserved at least some of their spell slots could even make some Magic Items, if one uses the DMG item creation rules.

[Rukelnikov]

It explicitly says it "lacks the ability into grow more powerful."

I am not sure how it explicitly saying that is not explicitly saying that.

It explicitly says it "lacks the ability to learn or become more powerful", but what does this mean?

Can the Sim cast Bless on itself? Its becoming more powerful.
Can someone else cast Bless on the simulacrum? Its becoming more powerful.
Can it make a check to determine the stronger opponent in a fight? That'd be learning something.
Can it realize its taking damage in a way the original creature hadn't upon creation? That'd be learning something.

Taken to the extreme:

Can it pick up a sack with thousands gold pieces? It could be considered becoming more powerful.
Can it ride and control a mount? It could be considered becoming more powerful.
Can it carry a conversation properly? That'd require remembering what was just said, which would be learning something.
Can it decide to do something without being ordered to? That'd require remembering what it decided to do, which would be learning something.

I think the strictest reading of that line would mean the creature has to be pretty much mindless, which isn't out of possibility, but also isn't stated anywhere in the spell's description.

Thus the only restrictions which put on the simulacrum are those specifically laid out, which are "so it never increases its level or other abilities, nor can it regain expended spell slots". Anything else opens a can of worms which leads to "simulacri can't carry on conversations, make their own decisions, have buffs cast on them or ride anything", and if that was the intent, the spell definitely should have been more clear about it.

[Segev]

Yes, but what does that mean? Are you "growing more powerful" by restoring yourself to the power you had when you were created? That's not becoming more powerful.

Neither is regaining spell slots by the (perfectly reasonable) definition you're using for "growing more powerful." It is clear (to me) that the use of "regaining spell slots" as an example of "growing more powerful" is very much intended to indicate that it cannot regain lost power, because it is growing more powerful than it is just before regaining that power. Alternatively, it would be increasing the net number of resources it has available from those it started with: that is, it starts with 5 1st level spell slots, and if it ever recovered them, it would have become powerful enough to have cast 10 first level spells, or 15, or 20, depending how many times it recovers them.

A sim is explicitly created without any equipment. Picking up mundane equipment, never mind magical stuff, makes it more powerful and increases its abilities. That's just down to the fact that having a sword or component pouch is better than not having one.

That sort of strict legalist reading nerfs sim through an unintuitive and annoying interpretation of the rules. And not one I expect to see followed in practice most places. Especially when the "become more powerful" line makes perfect sense as its own clause preventing leveling, as well as oddball level-like growths like gaining proficiencies through studying over downtime.

It is annoying and is probably more than what was intended, but it is indicated by what was written.

It falls to the DM to determine the line he draws. Maybe he feels that recovering resources is growing more powerful (as indicated in the RAW by the statement that regaining spell slots is doing so), but that picking up equipment isn't (because the creature already had the ability to use that equipment). This is, honestly, shaky logic, but it's better as a category definition than "only regaining spell slots counts as growing more powerful." (We could similarly stretch this to mean that it can new proficiencies, since those are not levels, abilities, nor spell slots, and the only specific listing of what is "learning or growing more powerful" is "it never increases its level or other abilities, nor can it regain expended spell slots."

I do think we can agree that it is a poorly-written spell, particularly in the sentence we're debating over. But if I try to parse what could have been intended, my own mental model of it is that they can't regain spell slots, can't gain levels, can't increase abilities, can't gain new proficiencies, can't recover resources with short or long rests, can't regain hp (this is supported by the later paragraph giving a VERY high cost and difficult procedure for repairing a damaged simulacrum)... but can pick up gear and equipment (despite technically falling under, arguably, "growing more powerful" by the same logic that regaining hp or spell slots would) because such things are not inherent to the creature. It has the ability to use gear it starts with the ability to use, and that's the inherent power it has. If it somehow lost those proficiencies or skills or knowledges, it couldn't recover them.

As best I can tell, the intent is - the RAI are - that the simulacrum be in a perpetual state of decline, at best not getting any weaker, but each resource is precious, and its "duration limit" is measured in how useful it remains over time.

This makes a certain amount of sense to me when you remember it's an illusion spell, not a conjuration, transmutation, or anything else. Its resources - its inherent resources - are illusions strong enough to have force of reality. But illusions aren't known for replenishing themselves.

But per this argument, I find "well, it can recover Warlock 1/day Invocations and Mystic Arcana, but not Warlock Spell Slots" to be a spurious distinction given the entire sentence. The RAW get fuzzy the further from "spell slots" and "levels" we get, and depending how "other abilities" are defined, but "spell slots" can only, to my mind, serve as an example of resources that would otherwise be recovered. If they do not, then it's a really weirdly arbitrary category to be included.

So, I still stand by that they can't recover resources, and would generally consider it to be shaped by what is regained during short and long rests (though that's a guideline more than a hard and fast limit to the rule). No hp healing other than the explicit exception and method given in the last paragraph. No spell slot recovery. No limited-use feature recovery. Your simulacrum of a dragonborn has as many breath weapons as the original had when you created the simulacrum, and cannot recover them. Your simulacrum of a troll might look like its wounds heal remarkably fast, but it can't regain lost hp. On the other hand, your simulacrum of a zombie does get to make that saving throw when something reduces it to 0 hp to instead only be reduced to 1 hp; that isn't regaining hp, but rather preventing that last 1 hp from being lost!

RAW is also sentence structure and other natural off-shoots of writing.

Segev's arguments are grounded in what is written, and therefore appear to be a solidly RAW argument to me.

Thank you; this is what I have been trying to convey

I find the alternative reading presented by the other side...spuriously legal by the RAW, but it leads to also letting them gain more proficiencies, since "cannot learn" is apparently limited to "gaining levels" and "increasing other abilities," which makes no mention of "learning new proficiencies." But... if that's how one wishes to read the RAW, I suppose it's technically valid, just... really really anti-natural language.




Incidentally, my own mental model of a simulacrum as a creature is that they are philosophical zombies. They're illusions of creatures. They're very accurate, very adaptable illusions, but they have no minds of their own. There's no soul, no real person there. They merely imitate one extremely well. Thus, it makes sense that they can't regain spell slots, or rage uses, or the like. They're a finite resource pool of magical investment that dwindles with time and expenditure.

This reduces the tragedy of the rather neat story somebody else proposed, about the simulacrum desperately trying to do the work his creator - whom he is modeled on - left him to do with increasingly-vanishing resources. It's not a real creature. But it could also be that something caused there to be a person there, something weird that went wrong, or a miraculous event that affected the simulacrum, but didn't, tragically, give him the ability to improve.

Or, maybe it just shifts the tragedy. The simulacrum's desperation is the illusory echo of the long-dead's wizard's own. You're interacting with him as if he were real because he seems real. But you're really interacting with a living memoire. It's as if you're reading the ancient wizard's journal of his hopes and plans, and you're connecting with him across the abyss of history to see the pieces he left of his unfinished work, and his plea that someone - you - will finish it for him. If you find the work worthy.

But instead of a dusty book, you have this illusion of the wizard, and the illusion acts like the wizard would, if the wizard were alive. But it's just an archive.




That's actually another interesting use for simulacra: living archives. Make simulacra of people who are about to die to preserve their knowledge, since the simulacrum knows what its original knew at the moment of creation.

Also, frighteningly, useful as an interrogation tool: you have the one you want to interrogate locked up/tied down, you extract the cubic inch of flesh, and spend all that time casting the spell. Then, an illusion of your prisoner takes form before his eyes. An illusion that knows everything he knows, and which is strictly obedient to you. It can and will act as much like the original as you want it to, but it remains obedient to you and will act like the original but with strict loyalty to you if you so desire. Meaning it will answer your questions with faux cheer, if you so desire, betraying the original's deepest secrets if you so much as know enough to ask.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Neither is regaining spell slots by the (perfectly reasonable) definition you're using for "growing more powerful." It is clear (to me) that the use of "regaining spell slots" as an example of "growing more powerful" is very much intended to indicate that it cannot regain lost power, because it is growing more powerful than it is just before regaining that power. Alternatively, it would be increasing the net number of resources it has available from those it started with: that is, it starts with 5 1st level spell slots, and if it ever recovered them, it would have become powerful enough to have cast 10 first level spells, or 15, or 20, depending how many times it recovers them.

Again, you keep saying how clear it is and I keep telling you it's not that clear. Whether or not it is an example doesn't mean it's an open ended list of things. Where do we stop? With a straightforward reading, you stop after the given examples. There are reasonable (and given outside context, intended) assumptions to make based off the list, but there are also equally valid unreasonable assumptions to make if you allow such assuming at all.

If we can agree on anything here, it's that it's poorly written. Recall the tweet I linked, even JC accepts RAW as those examples are the only limitations but clarifies the intent to be that they regain no resources. "But JC is stupid and wrong". Don't care, he's all we've got as far as authoritative figures go for rules intent and if he happens to draw the exact dichotomy I've been trying to explain to you from the very start I think that should at least be something you take into consideration rather than continue to flat-out reject.

I understand your reasoning, I agree that your interpretation is not unreasonable. I do not agree that it is the only reasonable interpretation, and I don't agree that it's even the most straightforward interpretation. We don't even seem to agree on what "RAW" should be defined as, so what worth is there in continuing to argue back and forth here. Lets just stick with what we do seem to agree on, whether stated explicitly or implicitly (I'm making assumptions here based on context ) - Simulacrum is poorly worded and the fact that it can cause such a disagreement on its limitations means that it is unclear what those limitations are.

[NecessaryWeevil]

Taken to the extreme:
Can it pick up a sack with thousands gold pieces? It could be considered becoming more powerful.
Can it ride and control a mount? It could be considered becoming more powerful.
Can it carry a conversation properly? That'd require remembering what was just said, which would be learning something.
Can it decide to do something without being ordered to? That'd require remembering what it decided to do, which would be learning something.

Can it move, thus gaining the high ground?

[Rukelnikov]

Can it move, thus gaining the high ground?

Can it look outside the window, thus learning if its sunny or cloudy today?

[Bobthewizard]

Neither is regaining spell slots by the (perfectly reasonable) definition you're using for "growing more powerful." It is clear (to me) that the use of "regaining spell slots" as an example of "growing more powerful"

You keep saying this is very clear, but I disagree with your interpretation as a matter of the English language. The clause about spell slots does not necessarily refer to the one about becoming more powerful, and I think it makes more sense if it does not.

"The simulacrum lacks the ability to learn or become more powerful, so it never increases its level or other abilities, nor can it regain expended spell slots." Let's break this down.

"The simulacrum lacks the ability to learn" - therefore cannot gain new proficiencies or learn new spells or abilities.

"or become more powerful" I think this places a cap on its power based on the time of its creation. Regaining short rest abilities is not becoming more powerful as long as it doesn't exceed its original ability.

"so it never increases its level or other abilities" further clarifies its inability to become more powerful.

"nor can it regain expended spell slots" is its own clause, and gives a further restriction but is not an example of other abilities that cannot be regained. If they had meant for this to be just an example, they would have said so. There are clearer ways to say that regaining spell slots is an example of other abilities. They would have just added the woods "or other abilities." But they did not.

[Segev]

You keep saying this is very clear, but I disagree with your interpretation as a matter of the English language. The clause about spell slots does not necessarily refer to the one about becoming more powerful, and I think it makes more sense if it does not.

"The simulacrum lacks the ability to learn or become more powerful, so it never increases its level or other abilities, nor can it regain expended spell slots." Let's break this down.

"The simulacrum lacks the ability to learn" - therefore cannot gain new proficiencies or learn new spells or abilities.

"or become more powerful" I think this places a cap on its power based on the time of its creation. Regaining short rest abilities is not becoming more powerful as long as it doesn't exceed its original ability.

"so it never increases its level or other abilities" further clarifies its inability to become more powerful.

"nor can it regain expended spell slots" is its own clause, and gives a further restriction but is not an example of other abilities that cannot be regained. If they had meant for this to be just an example, they would have said so. There are clearer ways to say that regaining spell slots is an example of other abilities. They would have just added the woods "or other abilities." But they did not.

It would be rather unnatural to group the "nor" clause into the sentence after the "so" clause if it were meant to be on par with the opening clause. A new sentence would make more sense at that point, or ordering it with the "nor" clause second, and the "so" clause probably as a second sentence, still, explaining that that was elaborating on a specific portion of the previous sentence.

Regardless, I think we're agreed it is poorly worded, even if we do not agree on the actual way to read it.

[Bobthewizard]

If a simulacrum casts magic jar and takes over the body of another humanoid, can that body regain hit points?

What if it is True Polymorphed into a dragon? Can that dragon regain hit points?

[Rukelnikov]

What if it is True Polymorphed into a dragon? Can that dragon regain hit points?

I did exactly this to get over the slots limitation by having it use change shape in order to access the spells of the different humanoids.

[Segev]

If a simulacrum casts magic jar and takes over the body of another humanoid, can that body regain hit points?

This is an area where I, personally, would think less about the RAW and more about the narrative fiction. Because I see the simulacrum as an illusion of a mind (as much as everything else about it is illusory), this would be akin to Shadow Evocation in that the magic is an illusory effect. The owner of the body is not really being sucked out into the magic jar's gem; he just thinks he is. His body acts like it is possessed because he is tricked by the illusion into believing it.

As such, I would also allow the creature to, if it had any means to consider resisting, make Intelligence (InVestigation) checks to end the effect early.

And yes, the 'possessed' body could regain hp and all of that, since it isn't the simulacrum but just an illusion-duped creature.

What if it is True Polymorphed into a dragon? Can that dragon regain hit points?

Yes. True Polymorph turns things into other things. I am pretty sure you can use it to turn a pebble into a dragon, so turning a magical pile of snow into one should work. If I am wrong, then making the magical pile of snow interact with magic as if it were a creature would suffice to make it work anyway.

By the time True Polymorph is done with it, it isn't a simulacrum, but whatever True Polymorph turned it into.

[Thunderous Mojo]

If a simulacrum casts magic jar and takes over the body of another humanoid, can that body regain hit points?

What if it is True Polymorphed into a dragon? Can that dragon regain hit points?

Metaphysically, I think it would be entirely consistent to rule that a Simulacrum could not cast Magic Jar. A Simulacrum is a construct, that has no inherent Realness.

Whatever ‘Realness’ a Simulacrum has, is borrowed from the original.
Magic Jar specifically talks about the movement of Souls..and the Simulacrum doesn’t have a soul…because it isn’t real.

Some degree of this argument could work for Shapechange, since on a fundamental level a Simulacrum is an Illusion, that is only temporarily a Construct.

Same for True Polymorph…a Simulacrum should be treated as transforming an object, (snow), into a creature, and not as a Creature to Creature.

This helps limit further abuse of the outsized power a mobile spell battery that doubles a PC’s spell slots creates, on it’s own.

Simulacrum is clearly an outlier in terms of power, and players should expect that DMs will regulate the spell.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Metaphysically, I think it would be entirely consistent to rule that a Simulacrum could not cast Magic Jar. A Simulacrum is a construct, that has no inherent Realness.

Whatever ‘Realness’ a Simulacrum has, is borrowed from the original.
Magic Jar specifically talks about the movement of Souls..and the Simulacrum doesn’t have a soul…because it isn’t real.

Some degree of this argument could work for Shapechange, since on a fundamental level a Simulacrum is an Illusion, that is only temporarily a Construct.

Same for True Polymorph…a Simulacrum should be treated as transforming an object, (snow), into a creature.

Simulacrum is clearly an outlier in terms of power, and players should expect that DMs will regulate the spell.

Not exactly true -

The duplicate is a creature, partially real and formed from ice or snow, and it can take actions and otherwise be affected as a normal creature. 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.

I think your argument for magic jar is sound at least, there's no indication that a simulacrum is a creature with a soul. It is a creature though, not an object.

It is also "partially real" in addition to being made from snow, so it does have some inherent "realness". It's more than a lump of snow, it's more than just an illusion. How much more is not particularly clear.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Not exactly true -


I think your argument for magic jar is sound at least, there's no indication that a simulacrum is a creature with a soul. It is a creature though, not an object.

It is also "partially real" in addition to being made from snow, so it does have some inherent "realness". It's more than a lump of snow, it's more than just an illusion. How much more is not particularly clear.

‘Inherent Realness’ is a quality. The true Reality of a Simulacrum is that is snow.

Whatever ‘Realness’ a Simulacrum Construct has, (outside being inanimate snow), must* be borrowed from the original. The concept of transitive properties is also present in metaphysical considerations.

Take away that borrowed ‘Realness’ and the construct becomes snow…per the spell text itself.

Alternatively, one could also decide that a Simulacrum doesn’t borrow ‘Realness’ from the Original, it permanently syphons a small amount of ‘Inherent Realness’ from the Original.

Powerful Magic should have Powerful Side Effects. Thematically, it seems cool that a Wizard making a Simulacrum of themselves is essentially splintering their soul, and gifting a fragment of their ‘inherent realness’ to the construct.

(*alternatively, Metaphysically, one could rule that all things share a universal soul..and thus allows everything to be anything..because it already is.)

[animorte]

(*alternatively, Metaphysically, one could rule that all things share a universal soul..and thus allows everything to be anything..because it already is.)

There’s a story I can’t recall the name off (the egg?) in which one lives in present time, dies, lives 800 years ago, dies, lives 50 years into the future, dies, lives 300 years in the past, dies, rinse-repeat…

Essentially every being that ever is or was is all a different timeline of the same soul in its various levels of growth.

derail over

[Segev]

Thematically, it seems cool that a Wizard making a Simulacrum of themselves is essentially splintering their soul, and gifting a fragment of their ‘inherent realness’ to the construct.

Maybe you're okay with the further implications, but this is the sort of thing you want to consider those implications on: remember, it is not necessary that the simulacrum be of the caster, nor even of a willing target.

[KorvinStarmast]

Powerful Magic should have Powerful Side Effects. Thematically, it seems cool that a Wizard making a Simulacrum of themselves is essentially splintering their soul, and gifting a fragment of their ‘inherent realness’ to the construct.

They did that in previous editions, and have chosen in 5e not to get that fiddly, but none of that stops a DM from embracing that concept to tailor the simulacrum spell better to their game world.
If one is going with this idea, splintering a soul should have a cost; how many HP or spell slots or {something}s must a wizard give up in order for a simulacrum to have a piece of a real soul? Might be better to think it all the way through before implementing a change.

[Chronos]

Quoth animorte:


There’s a story I can’t recall the name off (the egg?) in which one lives in present time, dies, lives 800 years ago, dies, lives 50 years into the future, dies, lives 300 years in the past, dies, rinse-repeat…

"The Egg", by Andy Weir (same author as The Martian).