Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Frozenstep" data-source="post: 7923760" data-attributes="member: 7020624">The problem is that it adds a new pacing issue that is unique to longer lasting spells like simulacrum and contingency. With the 6-8 encounter thing...you don't actually need to do 6-8 encounters every single day. You can have days that are busy in terms of combat, and then days of travel or investigating in a city or trying to get something political done. You can have your attrition-based survival happen every so often, and if they're back to back or a week apart.But simulacrum breaks that dynamic.And so the DM became scared about letting the characters have any free time or finding too much gold. Bob the warrior's dreams of rebuilding a ruined castle to use as a base were shattered because it would mean Tim the wizard would get too much use of one of his spells.Yes, simulacrum has weaknesses, but it's still an insanely good spell, and one of the reasons why is you can cast it on a day you have nothing else to do and retain the benefits until you need them. Just because a glass cannon has the weakness of being a glass cannon doesn't mean it can't be too strong of an option. Also nothing says a simulacrum can't take rests and regain abilities...actually let's not get into how badly worded this spell is.Yeah, and...? Having the simulacrum is still an insane advantage in any dangerous fight.See, depending on the situation, it's something that could easily be very reasonable without the DM realizing they were setting themselves up. Powerful wizard wants to help you defeat the evil warlock, but is busy holding a demonic portal closed with a spell that he can't move away from! Party asks if this is so important to him and he's not going anywhere, why not let them copy him? Not like he's going anywhere.It just sets up a lot of situations where the DM has to be ready to justify a no. Or they could just not justify it and leave the players rolling their eyes. It's an annoying lesser of two evils, shutting down a good idea that makes sense rather then breaking things mechanically or forcing you to rebalance everything. Look man, if it works well in your games, I'm honestly happy it does. But see, I'm not the kind of person that looks at a potential problem and decides "You know what? In 80% of these cases, this doesn't cause a noticeable issue and is kind of cool", I look at what bad cases there are, and what prevents a user from reaching them. And if it doesn't put those cases in hard-to-reach-and/or-dubious-practicality-at-that-point (such as taking 3 levels of sorc so you can twin simulacrum), then I see it as a problem.  Maybe I'm just a pessimist. How do they know it can be dispelled so easily? Does every spellcaster in the world necessarily know what simulacrum even is? Do they even know it isn't real, given that it appears the same as the original? Maybe they'd end up dispelling the real one by accident? Or think it's simply a brother or something? Or you could have it wear different equipment to disguise itself as just another party member.  If you came into combat with two creatures, would your first reaction be to try and dispel one of them? For the DM they know it's a simulacrum, but for creatures in the world there's a leap in logic to be making and one not usually worth taking in the middle of dangerous combat.</blockquote>

Verification