One of my favorite spells. A little Nystul's Magic Aura to conceal your handiwork and you can ensure any King or faction leader is loyal and true. Overall, I prefer the Clone spell. I would love to see your take on that one!
One thing that I have heard no one talk about with the old spells is Simulacrum/True Polymorph combo. Why bother repairing a Sim when you can just True PolyMorph it into something else that CAN regain hit points like say a Pit Fiend, Planatar, or Ancient Brass Dragon? But sadly they stopped those shenanigans. True Polymorph isn’t permanent now.
I abused Simulacrum as a Warlock/Bard. Lv2 Warlock, lv13 Bard. make another me, give that extra me Illusionist Bracers and it is an eldritch blast machine, that only used its spells to protect itself or others. like shielding attacks against it or counterspelling enemy spells. When it ran out of spell slots then make a new one. it lasts several sessions before going down since it always held back. Its pointless to repair it since its 1500 gp (or 15 Hp worth) just to make a new one. plus a new full set of spell slots.
This was fun, I love some appretiation for my favorite spell. However, as far as I'm aware, this shouldn't be an issue because the wording of the wish spell description doesn't allow it. There it says that it "duplicates any othe spell of 8th level or lower". Duplicate a spell is not the same as duplicate the effects of a spell, meaning that, unless it specified otherwise, the limitations for recasting should still apply as normal (which makes the issue of abuse of simulacrum technically a homebrew issue, if not just misinterpretation of the wish spell). Unless I'm the one reading it wrong, of course. Please comment if I am.
The term "duplicate" in the context of wish means to cast the spell again and the guidance on the spell has been, "You don't need to meet any requirements in that spell, including costly components. The spell simply takes effect." So the wish spell could poof another simulacrum into being.
@@TheDungeonMastersTome Oh, I thought the justification was about not casting the spell which could bypass the 'only one simulacrum spell active' limitation. Ok, it actually was about considering the limitation among the requirements the wish spell can bypass, I get it now... but I'm still not convinced that could work RAW. The thing is, that that limitation is not a requirement for casting the spell, but actually part of the spell effect, which is specified that just happens. A side effect to be precise, but in any case that still means it would apply as normal.
@@Katwind the limit of only one spell active refers to whoever cast the simulacrum spell - so you as the character. However, if your simulacrum casts a spell or is the source of the wish spell, they’re treated as a new entity casting a completely new spell. For example both you and your simulacrum could both be holding two different concentration spells at the same time. So the limit of only having one simulacrum wouldn’t apply as you do only have one. The second belongs to your simulacrum and so forth and so on. The wish spell isn’t creating another copy of you, it’s copying your simulacrum
@@TheDungeonMastersTome Oh I forgot to answer again, sorry. Thank you for continuing to explain this, now I really get it. This really doesn't break the spells effects, at lest RAW. It could still be easily stopped, but it would require to create homebrew restrictions and maybe also worldbuilding how the magic actually works (which is fine, because I love worldbuilding). But of course, that would need to be discussed among the players beforehand, so nerfing the spell effects (like saying the copy can't cast 9th level spells) would be prefferable.
@@Katwind exactly. In my case I have a general rule with my players we call "dont be a dick" which includes intentionally doing things to break the game system.
I took it as having a simulacrum cast wish to produce a simulacrum still being casting simulacrum and therefore invalid. Atleast that’s how I’d adjudicate it. But clear language is always good.
That is probably how i would house rule it too - A simulacrum would be unable to wish to reproduce the simulacrum spell - like something inside it would prevent it from uttering those words. but my players know that game breaking things aren't welcome at my table, even if legal.
With my home brew simulacrum I nix it being able to cast any spell above 6th level, but it can regain hitpints and be a renewable resource. however you must burn that 7th level spell slot every day to do so. To nix rest casting. The designers know nothing about how to update the rules fix loopholes or even make the game more fun.
I think no matter what the designer's do - even if they were experts, it would be impossible to fix everything. Every fix introduces a new opportunity to make something else unintentionally broken - this is a problem every game system suffers from.
@@TheDungeonMastersTome I agree, but in this case the true failure of the design team I suspect comes from Hasbro saying it must be backwards compatible, and you cannot make large changes to avoid ruining the game. Basically putting the design team in handcuffs. D&D needs to evolve every decade to keep it fresh, people change how they play and the game style and culture grows. A new edition is required at this point even though it is a risk as Hasbro would see it. It can introduce new ideas concepts and play styles. That would encourage players to try something new instead all we are getting are simple mathematical buffs like monk hitting harder and the removal of beloved mechanics and powers because the design team sees them as too good. IE the -5,+10 mechanic, the paladin multi-smite, rogue multi- sneak attack, ect all gone. And the buffs coming in cannot compare to what has been lost. Worst yet the biggest nerfs are on martials who needed the most love. instead they give you a red herring in buffs that look good as long as you ignore how people have played those classes and the builds that made them somewhat okay in the 2014 books. Put it simply more mistakes have been made than what has been fixed.
@@scetchmonkey007 I appreciate your perspective on that - because I’ve seen other people say the reason it is backwards compatible is because the player base would have lost their minds if their 5e content was suddenly out of date which would have been seen as an even bigger money grab by hasbro. Having seen both sides of the argument- and being a neutral party indifferent either way - I’m only positive that either way people would have been unhappy
@@TheDungeonMastersTome I've been playing since AD&D I've been through multiple edition changes. So yeah the gripes happen but if the new edition is better than the old then those gripes go away. Each new edition has brought something to the game that I think should never be lost. AD&D refined classes and races, introduced the rogue class (In OG D&D elf and dwarf where both class and race). 3E brought in feats and the power attack mechanic (reduced attack roll for + damage) something that became essential for martials to mop up weaker baddies when casters just Aoed them to death. 4E brought in the marking mechanics and concepts like the Warlord and Avenger. I was so sad to never see them implemented in 5E that these where the first house rules I added. But 4E was probably avoided like the plague because of how unpopular it was. the 2024 books have nothing that I want to add to my game. Or I should say nothing that I did not previously add to the game because those house rules where already no brainers.
Making copies of your Warlock is still fun. More Eldritch Blasts for everyone!!!
That’s the level of “I’m doing this because it’s fun” I’m here for!
And this is just one of the reasons I multiclass. Higher level spells sometimes just break the game and make it less fun for everyone!
Solid take.
Multiclassing is always fun
One of my favorite spells. A little Nystul's Magic Aura to conceal your handiwork and you can ensure any King or faction leader is loyal and true. Overall, I prefer the Clone spell. I would love to see your take on that one!
I will do it eventually! That’s for sure. I’m going to do a video for every spell in the game.
Intro goes hard
Imagine all I can do with little clones running around now.
One thing that I have heard no one talk about with the old spells is Simulacrum/True Polymorph combo. Why bother repairing a Sim when you can just True PolyMorph it into something else that CAN regain hit points like say a Pit Fiend, Planatar, or Ancient Brass Dragon?
But sadly they stopped those shenanigans. True Polymorph isn’t permanent now.
That’s an interesting thought experiment
I abused Simulacrum as a Warlock/Bard. Lv2 Warlock, lv13 Bard. make another me, give that extra me Illusionist Bracers and it is an eldritch blast machine, that only used its spells to protect itself or others. like shielding attacks against it or counterspelling enemy spells. When it ran out of spell slots then make a new one. it lasts several sessions before going down since it always held back. Its pointless to repair it since its 1500 gp (or 15 Hp worth) just to make a new one. plus a new full set of spell slots.
That’s amazing
This was fun, I love some appretiation for my favorite spell. However, as far as I'm aware, this shouldn't be an issue because the wording of the wish spell description doesn't allow it. There it says that it "duplicates any othe spell of 8th level or lower". Duplicate a spell is not the same as duplicate the effects of a spell, meaning that, unless it specified otherwise, the limitations for recasting should still apply as normal (which makes the issue of abuse of simulacrum technically a homebrew issue, if not just misinterpretation of the wish spell).
Unless I'm the one reading it wrong, of course. Please comment if I am.
The term "duplicate" in the context of wish means to cast the spell again and the guidance on the spell has been, "You don't need to meet any requirements in that spell, including costly components. The spell simply takes effect." So the wish spell could poof another simulacrum into being.
@@TheDungeonMastersTome Oh, I thought the justification was about not casting the spell which could bypass the 'only one simulacrum spell active' limitation. Ok, it actually was about considering the limitation among the requirements the wish spell can bypass, I get it now... but I'm still not convinced that could work RAW.
The thing is, that that limitation is not a requirement for casting the spell, but actually part of the spell effect, which is specified that just happens. A side effect to be precise, but in any case that still means it would apply as normal.
@@Katwind the limit of only one spell active refers to whoever cast the simulacrum spell - so you as the character. However, if your simulacrum casts a spell or is the source of the wish spell, they’re treated as a new entity casting a completely new spell.
For example both you and your simulacrum could both be holding two different concentration spells at the same time.
So the limit of only having one simulacrum wouldn’t apply as you do only have one. The second belongs to your simulacrum and so forth and so on. The wish spell isn’t creating another copy of you, it’s copying your simulacrum
@@TheDungeonMastersTome Oh I forgot to answer again, sorry. Thank you for continuing to explain this, now I really get it. This really doesn't break the spells effects, at lest RAW. It could still be easily stopped, but it would require to create homebrew restrictions and maybe also worldbuilding how the magic actually works (which is fine, because I love worldbuilding). But of course, that would need to be discussed among the players beforehand, so nerfing the spell effects (like saying the copy can't cast 9th level spells) would be prefferable.
@@Katwind exactly. In my case I have a general rule with my players we call "dont be a dick" which includes intentionally doing things to break the game system.
I took it as having a simulacrum cast wish to produce a simulacrum still being casting simulacrum and therefore invalid. Atleast that’s how I’d adjudicate it. But clear language is always good.
That is probably how i would house rule it too - A simulacrum would be unable to wish to reproduce the simulacrum spell - like something inside it would prevent it from uttering those words. but my players know that game breaking things aren't welcome at my table, even if legal.
With my home brew simulacrum I nix it being able to cast any spell above 6th level, but it can regain hitpints and be a renewable resource. however you must burn that 7th level spell slot every day to do so. To nix rest casting. The designers know nothing about how to update the rules fix loopholes or even make the game more fun.
I think no matter what the designer's do - even if they were experts, it would be impossible to fix everything. Every fix introduces a new opportunity to make something else unintentionally broken - this is a problem every game system suffers from.
@@TheDungeonMastersTome I agree, but in this case the true failure of the design team I suspect comes from Hasbro saying it must be backwards compatible, and you cannot make large changes to avoid ruining the game. Basically putting the design team in handcuffs. D&D needs to evolve every decade to keep it fresh, people change how they play and the game style and culture grows. A new edition is required at this point even though it is a risk as Hasbro would see it. It can introduce new ideas concepts and play styles. That would encourage players to try something new instead all we are getting are simple mathematical buffs like monk hitting harder and the removal of beloved mechanics and powers because the design team sees them as too good. IE the -5,+10 mechanic, the paladin multi-smite, rogue multi- sneak attack, ect all gone. And the buffs coming in cannot compare to what has been lost. Worst yet the biggest nerfs are on martials who needed the most love. instead they give you a red herring in buffs that look good as long as you ignore how people have played those classes and the builds that made them somewhat okay in the 2014 books.
Put it simply more mistakes have been made than what has been fixed.
@@scetchmonkey007 I appreciate your perspective on that - because I’ve seen other people say the reason it is backwards compatible is because the player base would have lost their minds if their 5e content was suddenly out of date which would have been seen as an even bigger money grab by hasbro.
Having seen both sides of the argument- and being a neutral party indifferent either way - I’m only positive that either way people would have been unhappy
@@TheDungeonMastersTome I've been playing since AD&D I've been through multiple edition changes. So yeah the gripes happen but if the new edition is better than the old then those gripes go away. Each new edition has brought something to the game that I think should never be lost. AD&D refined classes and races, introduced the rogue class (In OG D&D elf and dwarf where both class and race). 3E brought in feats and the power attack mechanic (reduced attack roll for + damage) something that became essential for martials to mop up weaker baddies when casters just Aoed them to death. 4E brought in the marking mechanics and concepts like the Warlord and Avenger. I was so sad to never see them implemented in 5E that these where the first house rules I added. But 4E was probably avoided like the plague because of how unpopular it was.
the 2024 books have nothing that I want to add to my game. Or I should say nothing that I did not previously add to the game because those house rules where already no brainers.