D&D 5E Help balancing a spell

[Esker]

Some other very powerful things a wizard could do with this spell:

Diviners doubling their uses of portent
Transmuters getting unlimited transmuter's stones (RAW, the stone survives even if the creator dies)
Enchanters using their duplicate's Hypnotic Gaze to lock down an enemy while leaving the original's actions free to cast spells

Granted, all of these are possible with Simulacrum too, but the long casting time and expensive components limits this sort of thing more with that spell.

As others have mentioned, bards' duplicates would be able to do a bunch of non-spell things too. Two uses of cutting words per round is pretty nice. This would buff swords bards' attacks a fair bit more than other spells they could use (especially since it's not concentration, so it doesn't stop them from also casting something like an Animate Objects). The way this is currently written it wouldn't prevent a Glamor Bard duplicate from using Mantle of Majesty, since the command spell there doesn't use spell slots.

 

[BlivetWidget]

Excellent points by all. Kind of difficult to balance things meant for a specific class when the game designers won't keep the archetypes in their lane (or when they give spell-like abilities that are not spells)... But I've given it some thought, and I think "cannot use class features which recharge on a short or long rest (such as spell slots)" gets to the heart of my intent. @Esker this cuts out spell slots, invocations, bladesongs, portents, hypnotic gazes, and a host of possible shenanigans we haven't even thought of. I figure if the game makes a feature at-will, it's probably fine if that slips through the cracks.

@Gadget good point, there isn't really a strong need to make it so fiddly.

@Salthorae I'd like the material components to not be consumed. My default assumption is that components are only consumed if they specifically say so (I could be wrong, but I think the other spells behave this way - I can't think of exceptions off the top of my head, in any case.)

I think I'm quite happy with the loopholes we've found and closed off with this discussion. This is the final wording I think I've settled on:

Simple Simulacrum:
5th-level transmutation
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: touch
Components: V, S, M (a ball of clay infused with 500 gp of powdered ruby)
Duration: until dispelled
Class: wizard
You touch the ground at a point within reach. As you raise your hand, an illusory duplicate of yourself rises up from the ground. The duplicate is a creature, partially real and formed from the ground, and it can take actions and otherwise be affected as a normal creature. It appears to be the same as you, but it has half your hit point maximum, cannot use class features which recharge on a short or long rest (such as spell slots), and is formed without any functional equipment. Otherwise, the illusion uses all your statistics, except that it is a construct.

The simple simulacrum is friendly to you and creatures you designate. It obeys your spoken commands, moving and acting in accordance with your wishes and acting on your turn in combat. The simple simulacrum lacks the ability to learn or become more powerful, so it never increases its level or other abilities.

If a simple simulacrum is damaged, you can repair it by casting this spell on it again. If you create a new simple simulacrum, or if the simple simulacrum drops to 0 hit points, it reverts to dust.

At higher levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 6th level or higher, it creates an additional simple simulacrum for each slot level above 5th.

 

[Salthorae]

@Salthorae I'd like the material components to not be consumed. My default assumption is that components are only consumed if they specifically say so (I could be wrong, but I think the other spells behave this way - I can't think of exceptions off the top of my head, in any case.)

No, you're right, it only consumes if it specifically states it in 5e. I was thinking if you wanted to put a limiter on the spell to reign it in, that was the easiest way to accomplish that.

 

[BlivetWidget]

No, you're right, it only consumes if it specifically states it in 5e. I was thinking if you wanted to put a limiter on the spell to reign it in, that was the easiest way to accomplish that.

It certainly would, I just have an aversion to recurring costs. Not a fan of costly components of any sort, really, but I felt like I couldn't really avoid it with this one - I just did my best to guess a number that I thought people might feel was fair. I'm going to try to not go off the rails too far on this sidebar, but:

I feel like a recurring cost for character features (including spells) is a bit of a design cop-out. It takes the onus of balance away from the game designers and puts it onto the DM's already-full plate. There's an argument to be made that it gives the DM more control over their game, and I can agree with that to an extent, but it also puts the player into a position of "mother, may I?" to even use their character's features. I mean, let's say a character took the Stone Skin spell. Then the characters have to go off into the wilderness and there's no more diamond dust to be had. Or some crazy plot stuff happens and suddenly it's a low-income campaign. Either way, the spell is useless to the player at that point - and they had passed over some a great spell like Polymorph, Greater Invisibility, Resilient Sphere, etc. to get it.

I don't play Adventurers League, but I've seen comments that this is a fairly serious issue for wizards in AL. The wizard class, IMHO, is built around the spellbook, especially being able to expand the spellbook outside of level progression. Unfortunately (again, IMHO), this is an expensive process. But AL is now focused on tight control of player gold. Levels 1-4, characters are allowed to earn 10-20 gp per hour... to an absolute maximum of 80 gp per level. So as they step into level 5, the maximum possible money they can have is 320 gp. 320 gp (which again, is the maximum they can receive, not necessarily what they can expect) is nothing for a wizard. A level 3 spell costs 150 gp just to put into the spellbook, to say nothing of the cost of acquiring it. And if that level 3 spell was something like Magic Circle, it costs 100 gp every time you want to cast it. Yeesh! If the designers thought the spell would break the game at that level without active DM intervention, maybe it should have just been a higher-level spell.

End of rant...

 

[Quartz]

I think the duration is a bit problematic. How about limiting it to 1 day at level 5, 1 week at level 6, 1 month at level 7, one season at level 8, and 1 year at level 9?

I do see the possibility of abuse by a Bard gaining this spell via Magical Secrets. A second Song of Rest isn't bad but how about a constant Countercharm, anyone? And a Valor Bard gets two attacks.

 

[BlivetWidget]

I think the duration is a bit problematic. How about limiting it to 1 day at level 5, 1 week at level 6, 1 month at level 7, one season at level 8, and 1 year at level 9?

I do see the possibility of abuse by a Bard gaining this spell via Magical Secrets. A second Song of Rest isn't bad but how about a constant Countercharm, anyone? And a Valor Bard gets two attacks.

I think bards in general are a bit problematic lol. You might be overestimating the combat effectiveness of the simple simulacrum, however. Remember it has half the caster’s hit points and can be dispelled. Most level-appropriate enemies will probably be able to drop it in one hit (or one multiattack) since it has low HP and no access to spells like Shield.

I feel like most of the issues that we’ve addressed (including yours) have to do with an unintended use: a non-wizard being able to use wizard spells. I don’t think duration solves that problem at all. I tried to address it with the rest-ability restriction, but I’m open to a more clever approach.

I also don’t think it’s a problem if the spell is not completely useless. It has to compete with animate objects and wall of force, after all.

Edit/PS: I'm not opposed to altering the duration per se, I just don't think it actually addresses any issues. If it lasts one day or until dispelled doesn't mitigate any of a bard's spell-like abilities. Also, FYI, a second song of rest doesn't do anything because features that share the same name don't stack.