D&D General Simulacrum and then True Polymorph

[Fanaelialae]

You're missing the final clause of that sentence which modifies the entire premise.
1- The creature is limited in the actions it can perform by the nature of its new form, and
a- it can't speak,
b- cast spells, or
c- take any other action that requires hands or speech;
2- unless its new form is capable of such actions.
If you polymorph a humanoid into a Bear, it can't speak, cast spells, or take any action that requires hands or speech, because the Bear isn't capable of such actions ( using hands or speaking).
If you polymorph a humanoid into another humanoid, say dwarf into goblin, the new form (goblin) IS capable of speaking, casting spells and taking other actions that require hands or speech, so the dwarf polymorphed into goblin may cast spells IF the new form has spells in its stat block.

Like I said in another response, my PHB does not have the line designated as 2 under Polymorph, only for True Polymorph. It's possible that it was errata'd, but I was going off of what's printed in my copy.

I already stated that in the case of True Polymorph, you would gain access to the creature's spellcasting (if any). On the other hand, in the rare case that it comes up with Polymorph, I would rule that you don't. Since according to @Zubatcarteira that only beast that can cast spells is the Deep Rothe (and then only Dancing Lights) it's fairly moot.

 

[Warforged DK]

Like I said in another response, my PHB does not have the line designated as 2 under Polymorph, only for True Polymorph. It's possible that it was errata'd, but I was going off of what's printed in my copy.

I already stated that in the case of True Polymorph, you would gain access to the creature's spellcasting (if any). On the other hand, in the rare case that it comes up with Polymorph, I would rule that you don't. Since according to @Zubatcarteira that only beast that can cast spells is the Deep Rothe (and then only Dancing Lights) it's fairly moot.

Ahh, I misread your argument. You were talking about Polymorph and I was talking about True Polymorph.
Thanks for clarifying!
Polymorph does NOT have the "unless language", only True Polymorph.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

There is one Beast statblock that has normal spellcasting that I know of, Traxigor, who's an archmage that turned himself into an Otter permanently.

 

[DND_Reborn]

While simulacrum mentions an illusory duplicate, it does later in the spell specifically note it as a “creature”.

Yes, I mentioned that in my post. But "as a creature" and being a creature are not the same IMO, however I would not argue a DM who did rule it was sufficient. It is really a DM call.

 

[Stalker0]

Yes, I mentioned that in my post. But "as a creature" and being a creature are not the same IMO, however I would not argue a DM who did rule it was sufficient. It is really a DM call.

I mean the spell literally says “the duplicate is a creature”. I don’t know how much more specific you could get.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I mean the spell literally says “the duplicate is a creature”. I don’t know how much more specific you could get.

It then says "partially real" as well as making references to it being an illusion, more than once.

So, as I said, it is a judgement call, either way.

 

[James Gasik]

Wizard is a class. Archmage is a creature. Seep page 342 MM. Medium humanoid, any race, any alignment. CR 12. it is capable of speaking, using hands AND has spells.
If true Polymorphed into an Archmage, you get those spells listed in its stat block, nothing more.
True Polymorph doesn't say anything about the ability to learn new spells, and neither does the Archmage Stat Block.
Unless there's a rule about it elsewhere in the PHB, DMG or MM that I'm unaware of, the ability to learn new spells falls under one of two options and whether your DM is permissive or restrictive in rulings.
1- Nothing says you can't learn new spells, so you can learn new spells.
2- Nothing says you can learn new spells, so you can't learn new spells.

(on a side note, all these rules lawyering stuff really reminds me of my Legislation class in Law school. breaking down clauses and logically organizing them to determine legislative intent. relying on the correct use of oxford commas to include or exclude categories.)

Well really, this is simply an example of "what the rules say" and "what makes logical sense to the DM". It really depends on how fantastical your game is, and how fantastical magic is allowed to be in that game.

In some worlds, magic being able to grant someone the ability to wield a scimitar like an experienced Fighter or even magical powers is perfectly fine. "I will transform you into the princess to fool the hero- don't worry, you will gain all the knowledge and abilities of the princess to pull this off."

In other worlds, that might not be kosher. "You will become a marilith, but it's going to take awhile to learn how to use six arms and slither around on a snake tail. Oh and since I know you can't use a sword to save your soul, I got you six clubs to practice with."

No rules lawyering is really required on the DM's part, they can just say "this is how it works".

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Well really, this is simply an example of "what the rules say" and "what makes logical sense to the DM". It really depends on how fantastical your game is, and how fantastical magic is allowed to be in that game.

In some worlds, magic being able to grant someone the ability to wield a scimitar like an experienced Fighter or even magical powers is perfectly fine. "I will transform you into the princess to fool the hero- don't worry, you will gain all the knowledge and abilities of the princess to pull this off."

In other worlds, that might not be kosher. "You will become a marilith, but it's going to take awhile to learn how to use six arms and slither around on a snake tail. Oh and since I know you can't use a sword to save your soul, I got you six clubs to practice with."

No rules lawyering is really required on the DM's part, they can just say "this is how it works".

I hear what you're saying, but... the Oberoni Fallacy? That's pretty much what you just did.

 

[James Gasik]

I hear what you're saying, but... the Oberoni Fallacy? That's pretty much what you just did.

Can you commit an Oberoni fallacy in an edition where the rules are built on sand and are merely guidelines for the DM's rulings?

 

[Oofta]

Can you commit an Oberoni fallacy in an edition where the rules are built on sand and are merely guidelines for the DM's rulings?

That's quite the hyperbole you have there. Even if true, the same has pretty much always applied to D&D.