D&D 5E Attack of the Clones: Simulacrum

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I have answers for all these questions in my game. It's cool if you don't, but some people like coherent D&D. They call us "simulationists."

God of magic/creation says no? Perhaps the simulacrum comes from the Abadar's vault, where the god stores a copy of each thing, and thus there's only one loaner at any given time to form into a knockoff? Maybe the answer is "no one knows", because, hey, magic isn't an exact science. Its magic. There's tons of reasons why not to if that's what you want. PC's don't need access to every bit of information at all time for the world to feel coherent.

Other than George Lucas, did anyone really think introducing midichlorians improved Star Wars?

 

[Dausuul]

I agree in principle. Some loss of coherency occurs when designers or gaming table consider deeply how characters might interact with magic in relatable plausible ways. (For example, if a DM rules Simulacrum as RAW and then asks why no NPC has created a clone army to rule the world.) In the case of magical laws, 5E offers coherency with the fiction that spells are discrete specific expressions of the Weave.So 5E tries to explicitly address that coherency question. It can sometimes feel painfully obvious to me that spells effects don't seem very organic but rather highly constrained by metagame obligations thinly disguised under a story about discrete magical expressions. For example, if George RR Martin was asked to come up with a story of a wizard who created a simulacrum from ice and snow sans knowledge of D&D rules, I doubt his spell would match up with the existing D&D spell, I'm guessing it would be more vague or flexible.

It's not hard to justify the restriction in-game. Here's one way: The spell sets up a link between the simulacrum and its master, with the master's soul providing the animating power and controlling the simulacrum through the link. One soul can't power two simulacra. And since the simulacrum doesn't have a soul of its own, it can't create another.

If a player was really curious about the whys and the wherefores, and did research in-game to figure it out, I would devise an explanation like the above. However, if the player doesn't care enough to make that effort, I'm not going to bother.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

For example, if George RR Martin was asked to come up with a story of a wizard who created a simulacrum from ice and snow sans knowledge of D&D rules, I doubt his spell would match up with the existing D&D spell, I'm guessing it would be more vague or flexible.

If GRRM wrote that story, I'm guessing the snow simulacrum would show up in the prologue to the first book and then not be seen or heard from again for at least four books.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

If GRRM wrote that story, I'm guessing the snow simulacrum would show up in the prologue to the first book and then not be seen or heard from again for at least four books.

We would, however, have a very clear idea of everything it ate.

 

[Balfore]

Ok, I'm confused about the one thing holding this process back...
The PHB says if YOU cast another one, that the previous one is destroyed, implying that the spell was overridden.

So, your saying to cast SIMULACRUM, using the WISH spell, and then have the copy make more copies...?
And not YOU casting another copy again?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[Zardnaar]

Ok, I'm confused about the one thing holding this process back...
The PHB says if YOU cast another one, that the previous one is destroyed, implying that the spell was overridden.

So, your saying to cast SIMULACRUM, using the WISH spell, and then have the copy make more copies...?
And not YOU casting another copy again?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Yes the simulacrum loop was noticed early on. Even without looping it you can create simulacrums and have them cast wish spells for you getting around the 33% chance of losing the spell.

 

[shadowoflameth]

So thinking about this a bit. if you cast Simulacrum (spending the material component) the sim has 71hp and obeys the wizard, then it casts wish to make a 3rd that only obeys it, and it only gives commands when you command it to give one. plus only being able to add one per day after a long rest makes it a long time to create an army, but or simplicity sake the DM could rule that if the sim created a copy of you, the first copy of you would be destroyed since (indirectly) you created it.

If you really want to get cheesy, the sim could magic jar someone, make a close as the target, die and replace the target as a clone. It still couldn't regain spells, and would still only act on your command but it could make a lasting servant, though since simulacrum is an illusion, you could rule that it can't possess anyone

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

As the saying goes,

''Shadowy illusory duplicate me once, no shame on me. Shadowy illusory duplicate me one hundred times, shame on my DM.''

 

[dave2008]

If the simulacrum has half the hit point of the creator doesn't that impose a limit as well. 1st Sim = 71hp, 2nd = 35, 3rd = 17, 4th = 8, 5th = 4, 6th = 2, and 7th = 1.

That is hardly an unstoppable army. Am I missing something?

EDIT: Never mind - each Sim cast it on you - duh!

 

[Dausuul]

plus only being able to add one per day after a long rest makes it a long time to create an army...

There's no such restriction.

First, Simulacrum #1 casts wish (duplicating simulacrum) on you to make Simulacrum #2 and orders it to obey your direct commands.

Because you have wish prepared and a 9th-level slot ready, Simulacrum #2 also has these things. It immediately uses wish to create Simulacrum #3, duplicating you again. Rinse and repeat.

If the DM allows simulacra to make more simulacra, your army can grow at a rate of one clone per round.