D&D 5E Design Debate: 13th-level PCs vs. 6- to 8-Encounter Adventuring Day

[Celtavian]

How can you say this? Its the DM plays it, who makes decisions for it (interpreting your orders through the filter of its perceptions) and who decides what the Sim wants. In a real campaign, I would likely play it as a copy of the Eldritch Knight, maybe with the twist that it wants to be a real person (the Pinnochio effect). It may even talk to the EK and beg him to help it. Depending on your relationship with the EK (and the campaign experiences of the EK to date), this could create an... intresting series of events.

What part of it does what the caster says makes you think the DM plays it? It acts on my initiative count following my exact orders.

"It obeys your spoken commands, moving and acting in accordance with your wishes and acting on your turn in combat."

So do loyal hirelings.

No, they don't. Hirelings roll their initiative, go on their round, have personalities, lives outside of work, and don't follow your exact commands.

And compare this behavioural limit to Aasimovs laws of robotics for AI. Its nowhere near as comprehensive as those three laws, and Aasimovs get 'worked around' in fiction all the time.

There is no comparison. The spell is clear. You are creating a house rule.

And this knowledge (if possesed by the EK) is also possesed by the Simulacrum of the EK. Meaning it will know that you intend to use it as an expendable force multiplier (as you have done on earlier castings of the spell). It is loyal to you, and friendly to you, but assuming this knowledge is available to it, it may very well interpret your orders not exactly as you intended, and whn not given explicit orders to the contrary may decide that the best way to be friendly to you, or the best way to carry out your orders, is to do something very different to what you intended or asked.

My intent would be to make the Simulacrum spell almost as much trouble as it solves, and replete with RP and story implications to make casting it a real 'choice' by the caster instead of a gamist only force multiplier.[

The spell text is clear. If you want to do this as a house rule that is up to you and the player to agree. We would never come to agreement on this. The rules regarding simculacrum have no ambiguity other than whether they can be healed by means other than the alchemical process which the game designers made clear with a ruling. The simulacrum has no life outside of your commands.

The spell text is very clear. The simulacrum is not self-aware and it does not even say it defends itself if the caster is not giving it commands. Not sure why you are attempting this argument when the spell text is very clear on how it operates. A simulacrum cannot learn and cannot improve. If is nothing more than an alternative of a summoned creature.

This is inarguable. Nothing in the spell text supports your view. I will leave it at that as we would never come to agreement on this. I'd leave your table as soon as this little gem of a house rule was attempted. Then again I like gamist force multipliers and expect them to work. Then on the rare occasions when something happens, it will be interesting rather than some house rule DM is using to limit a spell he doesn't like.

 

[Celtavian]

Once you map this out with the giants, this room is way too small. It will make the fight easier, but I'm not sure it is what you intended. I'm going to run it per the dimensions of the room and the creature size.

 

[Radaceus]

I think the problem touched on by creating a simulacrum, is it essentially creates an NPC which adds (or detracts from) the CR of the encounter. Therefore, yes, it makes it easier, or, if this is a thing ( the PC has the spell, the DM knows it can and will be cast) the encounter is made that much more difficult to compensate.

 

[Flamestrike]

What part of it does what the caster says makes you think the DM plays it? It acts on my initiative count following my exact orders.

It follows your orders as a friend would and subject to its interpretation of those orders. It has a mind of its own (subject to its magical compulsion to obey you).

Nothing in the spell contradicts this interpretation.

No, they don't. Hirelings roll their initiative, go on their round, have personalities, lives outside of work, and don't follow your exact commands.

The simulacrum doesnt follow your exact commands either. It is not a mindless automata. It is free to interpret your orders as it sees fit (subject to the DM). It has a will of its own (Wisdom score) intelligence of its own and charisma of its own. It has all the experiences of its double, all its skills, and all its languages. It remembers what spells its double prayed for or prepared that morning over breakfast even.

A simulacrum of yourself has all your knowledges, experience and spells and skills (including spells prepared by you that morning). Its also instantly aware that it is a simulacrum (by virtue of this). It likes you and must obey your orders (and it knows why). Its as if your character suddenly popped into existence as a simulacrum, aware that he was a simulacrum.

If that simulacrums creator has a penchant for using past simulacrums as expendable suicidal force multipliers, it's aware of that too... and this could cause issues.

Thats how I run simulacrums; as a form of AI. Thats my perogative as a DM based off my interpretation of the spell.

There is no comparison. The spell is clear. You are creating a house rule.

No, this is no house rule. You interpret the spell to grant the player of the caster full unswerving and precise control over the simulacrum. I interpret the spell as creating a DMPC AI that is friendly to the caster, and is magically compeled to obey his orders to the best of its abilities (subject to the simulacrums understanding and interpretation of those orders).

Its a difference in interpretation.

Seeing as this is my adventure and my campaign, my interpretation trumps yours.

We would never come to agreement on this.

We dont have to. I've made a ruling as DM. Welcome to 5E - 'rulings not rules'.

The rules regarding simculacrum have no ambiguity other than whether they can be healed by means other than the alchemical process which the game designers made clear with a ruling. The simulacrum has no life outside of your commands.

Point me to this text. Im looking at the spell now and I cant see this.

The spell text is very clear. The simulacrum is not self-aware

Point me to this text. Im looking at the spell now and I cant see this.

it does not even say it defends itself if the caster is not giving it commands.

Any reason why it wouldnt choose to defend itself from a caster that intends to throw it into a suicide mission in the absence of express commands to the contrary?

I'd leave your table as soon as this little gem of a house rule was attempted.

I think we've already established that you wouldnt be welcome at my table IRL. Your play style is miles apart from what I expect at my table from my players and friends both when I DM and when I play. I would tire of wave after wave of (paraphrasing you here) 'morally nebulous PCs with no connection to the game world or anything in it, no need for wealth beyond that which can be used to gain in game bonuses to abilities, no moral convictions so the DM cant engage us that way or ever have to face moral choices, who seamlessly work together as an ommniscient tactical strike force, and refuse to engage in DM hooks, metagame, are only concerned with XP and magic items, and refuse to play in any games featuring any interpretation of a rule that differs from their own or players that dont optimise to the same level'.

But none of this is relevant to the discussion at hand at present.

For the purposes of this thread, no simulacrums, cohorts, hirelings, NPCs, allies, constructs, undead armies, or similar DM dependent force multipliers are allowed.

Thats the ruling.

 

[Flamestrike]

If you dont think Simulacrums are self aware, cant go haywire, and dont have plans and minds of their own, read Expedition to Castle Greyhawk which deals with a Simulacrum of Iggwilv (who has plans of her own including breaking free of her creators control - which she eventually does - and then seeking to become a real person).

In fact she is the central plot device for the whole story.

Its DnD canon, and I see no reason to deviate from it.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

So after calling me 'intellectually dishonest' for simply stating there is some ambiguity in the relevant section on AD XP totals, you now seem to have come full circle and admit that it needs clarification.

No. There is no ambiguity. There is controversy, as self-evident by the fact that you are controverting it. Sage Advice sometimes deals with unambiguous but weirdly-controversial things, such as the ruling in February(?) that monk AC does not stack with natural armor, it merely overwrites it. To people who understood the rules all along, those SAs seem weirdly redundant because it was not ambiguous in the first place--it's not that the devs are doing anything you can't do for yourself by just reading the rules as written, but some people appear to need Jeremy Crawford to spell it out for them.

Another example: apparently you also need a dev tweet clarifying that Simulacra really do act on their creator's initiative count, and hirelings don't (normally) act on their employer's initiative count. Again that is unambiguous, but you're controverting it anyway.

 

[Celtavian]

If you dont think Simulacrums are self aware, cant go haywire, and dont have plans and minds of their own, read Expedition to Castle Greyhawk which deals with a Simulacrum of Iggwilv (who has plans of her own including breaking free of her creators control - which she eventually does - and then seeking to become a real person).

In fact she is the central plot device for the whole story.

Its DnD canon, and I see no reason to deviate from it.

I did not say you could not occasionally have things go awry. But as you stated, it is a plot hook, not the text of the spell. The spell operates without problems the majority of the time as written in the text. Then when you the DM decide to make something strange happen as a plot hook or roleplaying scenario, then it is interesting and unusual. I don't mind this. I would not argue it. If you were doing this every time I cast the spell having it act on its own, disobey my commands more concerned with its survival, and the like, that would not be acceptable. A simulacrum is very much a quasi-real/quasi-illusory automaton meant to be used in the same fashion as a summoned creature in the vast majority of scenarios. It doesn't have the intelligence in general to subvert your commands like say a djinni or demon. It doesn't learn. You say "Fight the giant." It fights the giant. It doesn't take shots at the wolf, it doesn't leave to protect you if you get hurt, it doesn't heal your friend because it wants to. It fights the giant until you say something else. If you go down, it may just stand there until it dies because nothing in the text indicates it will fight to defend itself. It has no survival instinct or anything of the kind. Even a summoned creature will often defend itself, but not necessarily a simulacrum according to the text. It may just stand there and die with the same expression on its face as the person it is created from.

At least that is how I run it. You the creator must speak commands or it does nothing. Maybe the designers intended it to act in a more active manner, but that is not what the spell text states. To me it is another spell with advantages and disadvantages at the command of the user.

Of course, if the DM wants to have something strange happen to the player using simulacra all the time, have at it. Just don't make it every casting of the spell because you don't want it used. Just ban the spell and let the player know you don't like it. Things go much easier that way.

 

[Celtavian]

Round 2:

I need to think about how to streamline the information delivery. I'm going to do aggregate resource reports in separate posts.

First Encounter: No surprised round. Both parties alert to danger and visible.

Eldritch Knight 17 (same dex as Azurewraith, so assuming same init)
Giants: 17
Bard: 15
Paladin: 15
Wolves: 9
Wizard: 7
Cleric: 5

2nd round actions:

Eldritch Knight: Hps: 120/106 Bolts used: 8 Spell slots used: 0

Action: Fire at wolf 3 next to bard in back east wall of cave.
Bonus Action: Extra hand crossbow shot.
Using Sharpshooter: +13-5 sharpshooter=+8 to hit.
Rolls:
10=18, 9=17, 10=18, 5=13 (4 hits)
Damage: 4d6+64 (6,4,3,2)=79
Wolf 3 dead. (Difficult terrain those four squares due to wolf body)

Move Action: EK holds position.

Giants: FG1: 138/67 and FG2: 150/128 The big giant (designate FG2 and closest to paladin; engaged in melee) with the axe made of ice snarls something in a language none of you understand (Giant) and charges forward swinging his axe at the biggest among you... the Paladin!

Choice: FG1 has King Kong (Huge giant ape) in his face beating on him. Does a FG with a 9 intelligence have the presence of mind and awareness to decide to wake his buddy up while taking hits from the ape? I'm going to say yes. Out of the corner of his eye he sees the big FG drooling on himself. FG2 is within reach. FG1 uses his action to wake up FG2 out of the hypnotic pattern effect.

FG1: Action: Wake up FG2.
Move: Holds position against ape.

FG2: Awake now, he gets to act. He is pinned in and nowhere to move inside. He's been drooling and unaware. He snaps out quick, the tiny paladin is right in front of his face. He will hammer him and start trying to assess the situation.
Action: Attack paladin.
Rolls: +10 to hit
7=17, 3=13 (Two misses. Lucky paladin. Then again he got hit twice last round. Probabilities play out over time-The giant should be hitting the paladin with an AC of 23 about 1 out of every three hits, which will show up in short combats as a hit a round)
Move Action: Holds position ordering wolves to go after the archer.

Bard: Bard: 107/107 Slots Used: 1 3rd Inspiration: 4/4 Warlock Spell Slots: 2/2 (2nd level)

Bard is now semi safe.
Move action: Moves north to get clear shot on Wolf 2. She moves 10 feet on wolf body, then will fall back 20 feet after she fires.
Action: Eldritch blast at wolf 2. +9 to hit.
Rolls:
15=24, 6=15, 6=15; Dam: 3d10+12 force damage=(9,8,4)=33
Free action telepahty: Don't hit the giant on Ryken. He's frozen.

Paladin: Hps: 120/96 Slots used: 2 1st Channel Divinity: 1/1 Divine Sense: 5/5 Lay on hands: 60/60
Free Action Telepathy: I have big one.
Move: 5 feet left in direct path of giant.
Action: Attack Wolf 2. +9 to hit
Rolls: 6=15, 7=16 (two hits-I did not notice increased AC on big one) Dam: 2d8+8 slashing +2d8 radiant=(5,4,3,1)=21 to FG 2 (wolf 2 dead; DT those squares)
Free action emote at FG2: Bangs shield with sword. Glares at giant and indicates he wants fight.

Wolves: Wolf 1: 75/75 (hypnotized) Wolf 2: Dead Wolf 3: Dead Wolf 4: Dead
No actions. Three wolves dead. Living one hypnotized.

Wizard: Hps: 93/92 Arcane Ward: 31/0 Slots used: 1 4th/1 5th Arcane Recovery: 6/6 levels (requires short rest; used once per long rest)
Move: Pops up from prone fires at FG2 and drops prone again.
Action: Fire bolt at FG2. (Paladin too small to provide cover for giant) +11 spell attack
Roll: 11=22 Dam: 3d10 fire (10,8,4) 22 fire (lucky gnome)

Cleric: 133/89 Channel Divinity: 2/2 Spell slots used: 0
Giant Ape: 157/157
Move: Hold position in path of FG1.
Attack: Pounds on FG1; 2 fists: +9 melee attack
Roll: 7=16; 12=21; Damage: 6d10+12 (3,9,9,7,2,4) 46 bludgeoning to FG1

End of Round 2.

Much, much easier and better organized. On a side note, maybe Flamestrike was right about the wolves. You can pound through them when the party is focused.

 

[Celtavian]

Round 3

First Encounter: No surprise round. Both parties alert to danger and visible.

Eldritch Knight 17 (same dex as Azurewraith, so assuming same init)
Giants: 17
Bard: 15
Paladin: 15
Wolves: 9
Wizard: 7
Cleric: 5

3rd round actions:

Eldritch Knight: Hps: 120/106 Bolts used: 12 Spell slots used: 0
Free action telepath: Focus on big one on Ryken. Dom has other one. (all answer affirmative)
Action: Fire at FG2 on paladin.
Bonus Action: Extra hand crossbow shot.
Using Sharpshooter: +13-5 sharpshooter=+8 to hit.
Rolls: 6=14, 2=10, 20=28 (Crit), 12=20 (2 hits, 2 misses) Damage: 3d6+32 (extra die 6 for critical hit; rolls 6,4,2) 44 piercing to FG2
Move Action: EK holds position.
Missed bolts: 2 (half recoverable at end of battle)

Note: A little math analysis to show why Sharpshooter should always be on in this scenario. Without sharpshooter I would have had four hits and a crit against FG 2. The damage for four hits would have been 5d6+24=(4,6,1,3,5) for 43 piercing damage. Even 5 hits with a crit is one point less than 2 hits with a crit with sharpshooter. It's not contest. For lower ACs, always use Sharpshooter. Higher AC the decision may be different.

Giants: FG1: 138/52 and FG2: 150/27 The big giant (designate FG2 and closest to paladin; engaged in melee) with the axe made of ice.

Choice: FG 2 is damn tired of the archer. He sidesteps the paladin staying in his reach (so no AoO) and moves to hammer the EK. FG1 is locked into death combat with King Kong.
FG1: Action: Desperately attack ape. 2 attacks. +9 melee
Rolls: 20 (crit)=29, 13=22 (two hits with crit-monkey not happy); Damage: 9d12+12 (3,3,12,10,1,3,10,4,12-this is why I hate d12 weapons, damage rolls too wide)=70 slashing damage
Move: Holds position against ape.

FG2: Attacks EK.
Move: Moves to attack EK. Stays in reach of paladin, so no AoO. FG2 right in midst of group. Everyone within reach.
Action: Attack EK. +10 to hit (I hope he doesn't get as lucky as his buddy)
Rolls:2=12, 9=18 (One hit and one miss.)

Bard reaction: Cutting Words (cutting note against attack roll 9): 1d10 subtracted from attack roll (9) FG2 attack misses as Jubali sends falsetto note against his axe.


Bard: Bard: 107/107 Bard slots Used: 1 3rd Inspiration: 4/3 Warlock Spell Slots: 2/2 (2nd level)

Move action: Nowhere much to move. Stays out of 5 foot reach so no disadvantage on ranged spell attack.
Action: Eldritch blast at FG2. +9 to hit.
Rolls: 7=16,5=14,13=22 (2 hits); Damage: 2d10+8 (5,2) 15 force
Free action telepathy: Take this one down. Too close.

Paladin: Hps: 120/96 Slots used: 2 1st Channel Divinity: 1/1 Divine Sense: 5/5 Lay on hands: 60/60
Free Action Telepathy: I have big one.
Move: Hold position.
Action: Attack Wolf FG2. +9 to hit
Rolls: 7=16, 10=19 Damage: 2d8+8 slashing plus 2d8 radiant (8,1,6,7) 30 radiant and slashing to FG2


Wolves: Wolf 1: 75/75 (hypnotized) Wolf 2: Dead Wolf 3: Dead Wolf 4: Dead
No actions. Three wolves dead. Living one hypnotized round 3.

Wizard: Hps: 93/92 Arcane Ward: 31/0 Slots used: 1 4th/1 5th Arcane Recovery: 6/6 levels (requires short rest; used once per long rest)
Move: Giants is standing next to him. He's a gutsy little guy. He'll stay his ground.
Action: Shocking grasp at FG2. +11 spell attack
Roll: 18=29 Dam: 3d8 electrical (7,2,3) 12 (Giant loses reaction)
Free action telepathy: Dom, Dom, kill giant behind you. Kill giant behind you.

Cleric: 133/89 Channel Divinity: 2/2 Spell slots used: 0
Giant Ape: 157/87
Move: Dom ignores wizard. He's too enraged from crit. He hammers on FG1.
Attack: Pounds on FG1; 2 fists: +9 melee attack
Roll: 2=11; 11=20; Damage: 3d10+6 (7,1,1) 15 bludgeoning to FG1

End of Round 3.

I'll finish this when I get home from work. Should wrap up in round 4 or 5 depending rolls.

 

[Flamestrike]

Much, much easier and better organized. On a side note, maybe Flamestrike was right about the wolves. You can pound through them when the party is focused.

With low AC and cruddy saves, I expect a 13th level PC to be able to account for one with a single action and maybe a resource expenditure or two.

An evoker could fireball the lot of them, and then any survivors get picked off by a fighter moving and spreading his attacks among them (as a simple example). That should kill two. A GWM fighter should hit one three times with a single action, maybe expending a sup dice and should drop one. A single spell should be enough to take one or two out etc.

With 5 PCs, assuming 3 deal with the wolves, I would expect 2-3 dead wolves at the end of turn one.

65hp sounds like a lot, but its not really that much having regards to 5E hp economy.