D&D 5E Attack of the Clones: Simulacrum

[Rejuvenator]

Mystra overheard a forum discussion about the possible exploit in the Simulacrum spell. Overnight, The Weave auto-updated to version 5.08 with a security patch.

On the bright side, Elminister was really pissed when his clone armies suddenly melted, preventing him from being everywhere all the time like Santa Claus.

 

[Dausuul]

For what it's worth, and that's likely not much, but I noticed something when I was reading over the spell. I have taken the liberty of applying bold to the interesting factor.

"If you cast this spell again, any currently active duplicates you created with this spell are instantly destroyed."

I'm not saying it means anything, just saying it's interesting.

As DM, I would be inclined to extend that restriction down the chain, so it covers not only the simulacra you yourself create, but simulacra that your simulacra create. If your simulacrum casts simulacrum on you, it destroys itself in the process, with nothing gained. (I would also allow you to retain direct control of the resulting simulacrum.)

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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.

But if I don't know why, I can't do a good job of presenting the world. It's incoherent. Some people aren't into coherency but I grew up reading hard SF.

 

[Dausuul]

But if I don't know why, I can't do a good job of presenting the world. It's incoherent. Some people aren't into coherency but I grew up reading hard SF.

Sure, and there are scenarios in which resolving that issue--devising a limit which prevents game-breaking exploits, while being internally consistent and fair to the players--can be a challenge.

This, however, is not one of those scenarios. It's trivially easy to say that simulacra can't create their own simulacra (either because they destroy themselves in the process, or because the spell simply fails when cast by a simulacrum). It is within the spirit of the rules if not the letter, it's consistent, and and it doesn't step on any legit use of the spell that I can imagine.

This is like those infinite-wishes exploits some people came up with in 3E. Or Pun-Pun. It's an amusing theoretical exercise, but as an actual balance issue, it's absurd. Any DM who allows something like this deserves the consequences.

 

[Derren]

It's trivially easy to say that simulacra can't create their own simulacra (either because they destroy themselves in the process, or because the spell simply fails when cast by a simulacrum)

Why can't a magical construct not use its limited, non rechargeable power which nevertheless works perfectly fine to create another magical construct?
Sure you can say that it doesn't work, but you better have some other explanation besides DM Fiat.

 

[Dausuul]

Why can't a magical construct not use its limited, non rechargeable power which nevertheless works perfectly fine to create another magical construct?
Sure you can say that it doesn't work, but you better have some other explanation besides DM Fiat.

No, I don't need an explanation, any more than I need to be able to explain quantum gravity to justify falling damage. I just need to be able to satisfactorily answer any "what-if" questions that result from my ruling ("So, what if I do this, what happens then?"), and I am confident that I can do that.

The rules of magic are made up to suit the needs of the game and the fictional world. They need to be internally consistent, but they do not need to justify themselves in terms of some pre-existing "physics of magic," because the creators of D&D have--wisely--avoided giving us any such thing. The physics of magic is a mystery to players and characters alike. Simulacra can't create their own simulacra. Why? Because that's how it is. If your PC wants a deeper understanding of this limitation, you are welcome to devise experiments and conduct research in-game. Otherwise, it will remain an unsolved mystery.

 

[Rejuvenator]

But if I don't know why, I can't do a good job of presenting the world. It's incoherent. Some people aren't into coherency but I grew up reading hard SF.

I love coherency in sci-fi and fantasy. D&D only offers me only an illusion of coherency. Why should my wizard be able to unlock a new spell after killing enough orcs (for xp) and not via hard study and research? In previous editions, why is it possible to gain a rank in swimming skill after a week of killing orcs and never swimming? Why isn't a 500 year old elf who has only ever "slept" 4 hrs a day use wisely the extra years to become vastly more proficient in knowledge and battle over a mere 20 yr old human -- and why is every so elf so unproductive or unambitious or learning-challenged while off-screen yet every elf PC on-screen is consistently just as productive as human PCs? It's incoherent the more you look at it.

If I only look at the Simulacrum spell description, what coherency dictates that an active duplicate is instantly destroyed when a wizard creates another, or why is the simulacrum unable to learn or seek power, why can't the wizard himself/herself dictate that? I see a double standard for coherency if the DM's interpretation of RAI is no different in quality than the already existing spell limitations.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I love coherency in sci-fi and fantasy. D&D only offers me only an illusion of coherency. Why should my wizard be able to unlock a new spell after killing enough orcs (for xp) and not via hard study and research? In previous editions, why is it possible to gain a rank in swimming skill after a week of killing orcs and never swimming? Why isn't a 500 year old elf who has only ever "slept" 4 hrs a day use wisely the extra years to become vastly more proficient in knowledge and battle over a mere 20 yr old human -- and why is every so elf so unproductive or unambitious or learning-challenged while off-screen yet every elf PC on-screen is consistently just as productive as human PCs? It's incoherent the more you look at it.

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."

 

[Dausuul]

I love coherency in sci-fi and fantasy. D&D only offers me only an illusion of coherency.

Even in fiction, while you need consistency--you don't say on page 10 that physical transformations are impossible and then have somebody turn into a frog on page 50--you don't necessarily need coherency. Authors may choose to lay out a set of principles governing magic, but it isn't necessary to do so; the reader's understanding of magic only needs to be deep enough to grasp the plot. How does Sauron's magic work? How does Gandalf's? Who knows? We have a very rough idea of what Gandalf can do, and some faint intimations of what Sauron can do, but no clue how they do it. If Gandalf were a protagonist, we'd need a clearer picture of his abilities, but we still wouldn't need to know the principles behind them.

 

[Rejuvenator]

Even in fiction, while you need consistency--you don't say on page 10 that physical transformations are impossible and then have somebody turn into a frog on page 50--you don't necessarily need coherency. Authors may choose to lay out a set of principles governing magic, but it isn't necessary to do so

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.

A spell is a discrete magical effect, a single shaping of the magical energies that suffuse the multiverse into a specific, limited expression. In casting a spell, a character carefully plucks at the invisible strands of raw magic suffusing the world, pins them in place in a particular pattern, sets them vibrating in a specific way, and then releases them to unleash the desired effect

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.