FormerlyHemlock
Hero
And now you've got a vulnerability: anyone with a disguise good enough to fool a simulacrum can hijack your bot-net.
I would just raise Simulacrum to ninth level. That prevents Wishing for more simulacrum and most other abuse.
D&D 5E Attack of the Clones: Simulacrum
And now you've got a vulnerability: anyone with a disguise good enough to fool a simulacrum can hijack your bot-net.
I would just raise Simulacrum to ninth level. That prevents Wishing for more simulacrum and most other abuse.
You got the same vulnerability when it is a chain.
Thats rather silly. Can a simulacrum cast a summoning spell or is that also "becoming more powerful"?
How many players stood up and walked away from the table when you pulled this? Wouldn't surprise me when it were all of it.
Is a PC not allowed to get more powerful in order to vanquish "The Dread Great Dark Lord of the Caves"? Or only when he follows your railroad?
Last edited:
Fanaelialae
Legend
Why not simply say that a simulacrum cannot create other simulacra? It's not RAW but it seems to me that it is RAI.
I don't think it's very likely that the designers intended wizard players with lots of downtime and money on their hands to be able to create an infinite army of clones. The rules weren't written as an ironclad legal document. Sometimes the DM has to make reasonable rulings, or the game descends into absurdity.
I don't think it's very likely that the designers intended wizard players with lots of downtime and money on their hands to be able to create an infinite army of clones. The rules weren't written as an ironclad legal document. Sometimes the DM has to make reasonable rulings, or the game descends into absurdity.
I'm torn. On one hand the Army of Me scenario produces some amazing story backgrounds, but on the other hand this use of simulacrum throws the action economy of the game into a woodchipper.
Sure, the duplicates cannot regain expended spell slots and yes, those duplicates have to keep burning their 9th level slot on wish to keep the chain replicating, but they still have their level-based cantrips, as well as all the basic actions a character can take.
Hitting a tarrasque with 665* 17th level acid splashes every turn? Give me a 17th level wizard, 1500 gp of powdered ruby, some ice or snow, and 12 hours plus a long rest for the first duplicate and recharging my 7th level slot. Now, give me another two hours, twelve minutes and 48 seconds for the remaining 664 duplicates (one round to cast wish, one round to receive instructions each for a total 132.8 minutes). True, twelve hours plus a long rest is a real speed bump for a developing crisis, but once the initial duplicate is made, you add an action (and the potential for future actions) for every two rounds of effort (and that's assuming the DM requires a round for the instructions; you could argue against that requirement). The game becomes "How many duplicates do I need to accomplish X?"
*The original wizard is vacationing in the fantasy equivalent of Tijuana.
Sure, the duplicates cannot regain expended spell slots and yes, those duplicates have to keep burning their 9th level slot on wish to keep the chain replicating, but they still have their level-based cantrips, as well as all the basic actions a character can take.
Hitting a tarrasque with 665* 17th level acid splashes every turn? Give me a 17th level wizard, 1500 gp of powdered ruby, some ice or snow, and 12 hours plus a long rest for the first duplicate and recharging my 7th level slot. Now, give me another two hours, twelve minutes and 48 seconds for the remaining 664 duplicates (one round to cast wish, one round to receive instructions each for a total 132.8 minutes). True, twelve hours plus a long rest is a real speed bump for a developing crisis, but once the initial duplicate is made, you add an action (and the potential for future actions) for every two rounds of effort (and that's assuming the DM requires a round for the instructions; you could argue against that requirement). The game becomes "How many duplicates do I need to accomplish X?"
*The original wizard is vacationing in the fantasy equivalent of Tijuana.
pming
Legend
Hiya!
I agree. Silly. What's more silly is that a grown adult tries to pull this in the first place. An RPG isn't a game about trying to "win" anything...and especially not about trying to "win" in the same sense as an MMO can be "won" (yes, I believe you can "win" an MMO; usually the first couple people to "win" end up getting banned or temporarily suspended for breaking something in the EULA...that something is usually the "don't try and exploit or use a bug in the system to do stuff nobody else can without doing the same thing"...basically, the "don't be a Richard" clause; item/gold duplication bugs, for example).
A player who stumbles upon some rules "exploit" shouldn't try and use it in some delusional hope of "winning D&D". He/She should tell everyone in the group about it, especially the DM, and discuss a fix. Or at least see if he/she is reading it the way he/she thinks they are.
Having your character become more powerful as they play is a big part of most RPG's. It's not about that. It's about trying to use the rules in such a way as to circumvent the process of gaining that power through play. The way I see the OP's interpretation of the Clone spell, it seems it was written in the way of trying to "win" as opposed to trying to enhance everyone's fun at the table (yes, that includes the DM). Hence, my 'silly' interpretation of "becoming more powerful". Hey, if the player can be silly...so can I. And, being the DM, my silliness will always "win".
Not a single one. Didn't even cross their minds, actually. During my first "outing of player malarkey" there was a distinctly uncomfortable silence. Kinda like getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar when you were a kid. Everyone at the table knew exactly what and why the player was doing what he was doing. But, up until that part, nobody would say anything because (A) they didn't want that emotional uncomfortability, and (B) because the player would/could just point to the books and say "See? This is what I'm doing. My character would have no problem with doing that, he's Chaotic after all. It makes sense for him". And, I, as DM, would think "...dang it, he's right about the rules...and I'm the DM....I don't get to decide how he plays his character...grrrrr....I hope this doesn't implode the campaign!....".
But then I realized something. Sure, I can't tell him how to play his character, but I'm the DM and it's my job to try and maintain a fun and believable campaign setting from which everyone (including myself) at the table can be proud of playing. Ergo, I would have to "counter" the players actions in-game via monsters, NPC's, etc that I would likely have to create. In short, it was nothing but a game of one-upmanship. A "cold war", in a way. With neither side actually having the b@!!z to say what everyone was thinking. So I did the unexpected. I brought it up the next time it happened, adult to adult, person to person, friend to friend. Right there at the table, with everyone present.
After that session, we've never had that problem. That was probably....I can't remember exactly... at least two decades ago I guess. Playing a table top RPG is a group effort. Everyone is a part of the game. A Player doesn't play his character in a vacuum. His choices (not what his character does...the human player's choices) affect everyone at the table. If someone comes to the game in a REALLY bad mood, it affects everyone at the table. Watching a fellow player try and "cheat" (re: win the game via rule exploitation or general Richardness) also affects everyone at the table. The more it goes on, the more tension in the group, the less fun everyone at the table ends up having.
The effect of player shenanigans like this are seen time and time again on these boards and others. Usually some poor DM comes to the board with a "one of my players has an OP character", or "one of my players characters is constantly [doing something dickish...like stealing from the party]", or "in my game I have one player who tries to bully other players at the table by all manner of passive-aggressive behaviour", etc. What is the normal response by a LOT of the good folks on these forums? Usually it's "Talk to him after the game" or "Talk to everyone before the next game about...". Good advice, but it removes the premises of responsibility from the player in question. The problem player is never confronted by the group, so it leads to the same problems above (A and B). Everyone at the table knows that the DM had a talk with Player X...but doesn't say anything about it. That sense of "we know what's going on...but we all have to pretend like it never happened" hangs over the whole table. This, IMHO, is never a good thing.
Anyway, sorry for the lengthy post and side-threadedness. I honestly have no problem with players trying to find clever uses for spells, abilities, equipment or whatever. That creativity and unpredictability is a large part of my enjoyment of the game. I love it when I put something in an adventure where I'm thinking "I have no idea how they will survive this if they try and confront it....oh well, they can always run away....". And then, when they encounter it, someone pulls out a bag of nails, the wizard casts Spell X and the Thief climbs the wall and does something that completely screws-over the bad guys, giving the PC's a decent chance of success. *That* is cool. Having a player say "I just send in 10 of my 20th level clones to level the place" isn't in any way, shape, or form "fun" or "good times".
^_^
Paul L. Ming
I agree. Silly. What's more silly is that a grown adult tries to pull this in the first place. An RPG isn't a game about trying to "win" anything...and especially not about trying to "win" in the same sense as an MMO can be "won" (yes, I believe you can "win" an MMO; usually the first couple people to "win" end up getting banned or temporarily suspended for breaking something in the EULA...that something is usually the "don't try and exploit or use a bug in the system to do stuff nobody else can without doing the same thing"...basically, the "don't be a Richard" clause; item/gold duplication bugs, for example).
A player who stumbles upon some rules "exploit" shouldn't try and use it in some delusional hope of "winning D&D". He/She should tell everyone in the group about it, especially the DM, and discuss a fix. Or at least see if he/she is reading it the way he/she thinks they are.
Having your character become more powerful as they play is a big part of most RPG's. It's not about that. It's about trying to use the rules in such a way as to circumvent the process of gaining that power through play. The way I see the OP's interpretation of the Clone spell, it seems it was written in the way of trying to "win" as opposed to trying to enhance everyone's fun at the table (yes, that includes the DM). Hence, my 'silly' interpretation of "becoming more powerful". Hey, if the player can be silly...so can I. And, being the DM, my silliness will always "win".
Derren said:
Not a single one. Didn't even cross their minds, actually. During my first "outing of player malarkey" there was a distinctly uncomfortable silence. Kinda like getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar when you were a kid. Everyone at the table knew exactly what and why the player was doing what he was doing. But, up until that part, nobody would say anything because (A) they didn't want that emotional uncomfortability, and (B) because the player would/could just point to the books and say "See? This is what I'm doing. My character would have no problem with doing that, he's Chaotic after all. It makes sense for him". And, I, as DM, would think "...dang it, he's right about the rules...and I'm the DM....I don't get to decide how he plays his character...grrrrr....I hope this doesn't implode the campaign!....".
But then I realized something. Sure, I can't tell him how to play his character, but I'm the DM and it's my job to try and maintain a fun and believable campaign setting from which everyone (including myself) at the table can be proud of playing. Ergo, I would have to "counter" the players actions in-game via monsters, NPC's, etc that I would likely have to create. In short, it was nothing but a game of one-upmanship. A "cold war", in a way. With neither side actually having the b@!!z to say what everyone was thinking. So I did the unexpected. I brought it up the next time it happened, adult to adult, person to person, friend to friend. Right there at the table, with everyone present.
After that session, we've never had that problem. That was probably....I can't remember exactly... at least two decades ago I guess. Playing a table top RPG is a group effort. Everyone is a part of the game. A Player doesn't play his character in a vacuum. His choices (not what his character does...the human player's choices) affect everyone at the table. If someone comes to the game in a REALLY bad mood, it affects everyone at the table. Watching a fellow player try and "cheat" (re: win the game via rule exploitation or general Richardness) also affects everyone at the table. The more it goes on, the more tension in the group, the less fun everyone at the table ends up having.
The effect of player shenanigans like this are seen time and time again on these boards and others. Usually some poor DM comes to the board with a "one of my players has an OP character", or "one of my players characters is constantly [doing something dickish...like stealing from the party]", or "in my game I have one player who tries to bully other players at the table by all manner of passive-aggressive behaviour", etc. What is the normal response by a LOT of the good folks on these forums? Usually it's "Talk to him after the game" or "Talk to everyone before the next game about...". Good advice, but it removes the premises of responsibility from the player in question. The problem player is never confronted by the group, so it leads to the same problems above (A and B). Everyone at the table knows that the DM had a talk with Player X...but doesn't say anything about it. That sense of "we know what's going on...but we all have to pretend like it never happened" hangs over the whole table. This, IMHO, is never a good thing.
Anyway, sorry for the lengthy post and side-threadedness. I honestly have no problem with players trying to find clever uses for spells, abilities, equipment or whatever. That creativity and unpredictability is a large part of my enjoyment of the game. I love it when I put something in an adventure where I'm thinking "I have no idea how they will survive this if they try and confront it....oh well, they can always run away....". And then, when they encounter it, someone pulls out a bag of nails, the wizard casts Spell X and the Thief climbs the wall and does something that completely screws-over the bad guys, giving the PC's a decent chance of success. *That* is cool. Having a player say "I just send in 10 of my 20th level clones to level the place" isn't in any way, shape, or form "fun" or "good times".
^_^
Paul L. Ming
FormerlyHemlock
Hero
Yes, you do. I never meant to suggest otherwise.
jgsugden
Legend
There are a billion and one ways to break the game. If you find one, bypass it. The game is better when you're not finding some nuance that makes you uber-powerful.
...and as a DM, if your PCs don't follow that advice, YOU are karma. It is not the Gods will that a PC abuse the 'natural' order of magic. An offended God of Magic or Trickery might grant free will to a simulacrum. An evil wizard might use a wish to steal control of the similacrarmy. A doppelganger or other shapechanger might take advantage of the army and convince the locals that the wizard had begun to take advantage of the community.
...and as a DM, if your PCs don't follow that advice, YOU are karma. It is not the Gods will that a PC abuse the 'natural' order of magic. An offended God of Magic or Trickery might grant free will to a simulacrum. An evil wizard might use a wish to steal control of the similacrarmy. A doppelganger or other shapechanger might take advantage of the army and convince the locals that the wizard had begun to take advantage of the community.
FormerlyHemlock
Hero
Simulacrum abuse isn't really a strictly PC issue, guys. As a DM, I need an answer to the question of why some evil archmage (or even some neutral or good archmage) hasn't already done this, EVEN IF no PC ever gets high enough to do so.
I believe I have such an answer prepared, so I'm good.
I believe I have such an answer prepared, so I'm good.
For combat it does since the spell specifically states it goes on your turn and obeys your commands. It is not autonomous with you. You must set it to tasks otherwise it probably does nothing.
If you use wish to create the simulacrum, it won't have the wish slot because it was expended when you cast the spell. It will duplicate you without the wish. SO you must wait eight hours to get the wish back, then have the simulacra cast the simulacrum spell while you have the wish to repeat the process. It would take days to do that. Not too effective for combats you don't have days to prepare for.
Rejuvenator
Explorer
Extending that thought, a reason isn't technically required to invalidate the evil archmage clone army. NPCs and PCs just can't use simulacrum to create a clone army. Because if they could, then evil archmages could create an army of clones, and they'd already haven't they done so in the past. In which case, the current era could easily be dominated by clone armies. Presumably, there aren't clone armies in the far or recent past, so unless something changed, evil archmages in the current era can't either.
