D&D 5E Paladin: watcha up to citizen who is on parole? Lore Master Wizard: Pain and mischief. Paladin: oh dear sweet Pelor no!

[Todd Roybark]

A Simulacra, cannot cast the Simulacrum spell without destroying itself. A Simulacra is only partially real, and presumably what ‘real -ness’ adheres to it, is not it’s own, but the original creature’s.

So as soon as the simulacra casts Simulacrum it triggers this clause:
“If you cast this spell again, any duplicate you created with this spell is instantly destroyed.”

A simulacra has no svabhava, no ‘own being’ or intrinsic essence, only the original caster does. A simulacra has no ‘I’, it is all ‘you’, with ‘you‘ being the original creature.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

A Simulacra, cannot cast the Simulacrum spell without destroying itself. A Simulacra is only partially real, and presumably what ‘real -ness’ adheres to it, is not it’s own, but the original creature’s.

So as soon as the simulacra casts Simulacrum it triggers this clause:
“If you cast this spell again, any duplicate you created with this spell is instantly destroyed.”

A simulacra has no svabhava, no ‘own being’ or intrinsic essence, only the original caster does. A simulacra has no ‘I’, it is all ‘you’, with ‘you‘ being the original creature.

1. A simulacrum can cast spells
2. The simulacrum spell doesnt have to target self
3. A simulacrum can cast simulacrum targetting you and not itself
4. The simulacrum acts as an independant caster
5. The simulacrum can copy you instead of itself
6. Therefore nothing is triggered.

 

[Todd Roybark]

Mordenkainen casts Simulacrum on Elminster.
Elminster’s Simulacra casts the spell on Mordenkainen.
If Elminster casts Simulacrum, then the Simulacra created by Elminster’s Simulacra is instantly destroyed.

A simulacra, while independent is not a separate, distinct entity. A simulacra has no ‘realness’ of it’s own, it only has the Illusion of ‘realness’, it is “partially real”. Logically, such ‘realness’ a simulacra has must come from the original.

Philosophically, the ‘real-ness’ of Elminster’s Simulacra is not inherent, it is borrowed, or loaned, to the Simulacra, but not separate from Elminster.

So action chains requiring simulacra to make copies of copies, are rife with category errors, in my opinion.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Mordenkainen casts Simulacrum on Elminster.
Elminster’s Simulacra casts the spell on Mordenkainen.
If Elminster casts Simulacrum, then the Simulacra created by Elminster’s Simulacra is instantly destroyed.

It may be rules as intended -- though, to be honest, I think the design team didn't try to go into fine details to prevent exploits, relying on DM common sense -- but it's not rules as written. This thought experiment, like Pun-Pun, relies on rules as written to imagine what an enterprising young wizard could aspire to do. In those RAW, whenever you cast this spell, "any currently active duplicates you created with this spell are instantly destroyed". Not "any currently active duplicate of your target are instantly destroyed".

A simulacra, while independent is not a separate, distinct entity. A simulacra has no ‘realness’ of it’s own, it only has the Illusion of ‘realness’, it is “partially real”. Logically, such ‘realness’ a simulacra has must come from the original.

I'd be very wary of applying this "logic" to high-level magical theory. It is probably as risky as saying "if a bus travels at 50 mph and another bus travels at 50 mph in the opposite direction, they move toward each other at 100 mph, therefore, two photons should move toward each other at the speed of 2c". This is, however, a fun experiment.

In a worst case scenario, our wizard should acquire/recreate the version of the spell called Sansuri's simulacrum (7th level, like the original). the version of the spell wizards can gain, along with Sansuri's spellbook, during Storm King Thunder. It requires an additional 5,000 gp worth of powdered diamond, and specifically allow a single caster to hold multiple simulacra at the same time (Sansuri has tens...) of the same creature (she decorated her castle with copies of a single aarockra).

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Not to mention even in the raw example we are using WE ARENT COPYING the simulacrum. The simulacrum is copying the original. Not copying itself. So this lack of realness thing you said would prevent copies is literally irelevant to RAI AND RAW and certainly wouldnt even be relevant from an RAI point of view when applied to the specific way we've been talking about this. Perhaps the design teem would intend not to leave a broken spell in the game. Be that as it may, the RAI you were saying is not how they would have reasoned it. It doesnt logically follow. Also there is the possibility they left it slightly broken on purpose. Leavijg just a couple things broken is actually often done intentionally. Its impossible to know they didn't want people to figure this out (and then use it with a lot of self restraint)

 

[Todd Roybark]

People are welcome to rule as they want. A simulacra being “Partially Real” is a direct quote from the Simulacrum spell. Flavor text, is an indicator of design intent.

D&D metaphysics are described and implied by the rules.
A Simulacra’s inherent realness is a big blob of snow. For other properties to inhere, in the big blob of snow, a bit of “realness” is borrowed from the original. It is this borrowing from the original that allows the spell to function.

In effect:
Frosty the Snowman is not ‘real’ until the magic hat is placed on the snowman.

The spell makes clear that:
1) In the Original, the quality of ‘realness’ inheres.
2) The spell is an Illusion.

If a simulacra is not the original, at least partially then what is it?

One’s soul does not enter a simulacra, if the original’s body dies, so it is not a Clone.
The Simulacrum spell is an illusion spell, and only “partially real”, so deeming a simulacra is a distinctly separate entity, is ignoring the text of the spell.

So again, I ask: If a simulacra is not the original at least partially then what is it?

 

[Son of the Serpent]

People are welcome to rule as they want. A simulacra being “Partially Real” is a direct quote from the Simulacrum spell. Flavor text, is an indicator of design intent.

D&D metaphysics are described and implied by the rules.
A Simulacra’s inherent realness is a big blob of snow. For other properties to inhere, in the big blob of snow, a bit of “realness” is borrowed from the original. It is this borrowing from the original that allows the spell to function.

In effect:
Frosty the Snowman is not ‘real’ until the magic hat is placed on the snowman.

The spell makes clear that:
1) In the Original, the quality of ‘realness’ inheres.
2) The spell is an Illusion.

If a simulacra is not the original, at least partially then what is it?

One’s soul does not enter a simulacra, if the original’s body dies, so it is not a Clone.
The Simulacrum spell is an illusion spell, and only “partially real”, so deeming a simulacra is a distinctly separate entity, is ignoring the text of the spell.

So again, I ask: If a simulacra is not the original at least partially then what is it?

The issue here is that the simulacrum who CASTS a simulacrum spells in this hypothetical is cadting it on the original spell caster (who is completely real. That's who the spell is borrowing realness from). The issue im pointing out is not that there is not an RAI objection to be made. There are plenty. The issue im pointing out is that your particular rai objection CANT work. If the issue is that the thing to be copied needs to be real THAT is talen care of by the simulacrum targetting (keyword) the original and not itself. It doesnt need ti target itself. I could make a simulacra of a toad. Because the spell can target others. Do you see?