5e is well-balanced and made by people who know what they're do

"Are you sure about that...?"
*moving your hand over your DM's jean*

Unless it's a simulacrum of a gelatinous cube that reproduces by budding, I don't see how that could possibly work. Cutting a creature in half kills it, and when the simulacrum drops to 0 hitpoints it disappears.

And no, you can't cut something in half using "nonlethal damage".

Literally all you've ever had to do is tell the player they can't just BUY that much powdered ruby. They'll have to go on a multiple-session-spanning adventure to acquire it.

Also, NPCs casters should never not prepare dispel magic. They're supposed to be smart, DM them as smart.

The way I described is completely by the rules instead of your way that's of questionable validity.

>DM turns you into the BBEG
>Rumors of a crazy wizard amassing a clone army
>Young adventurers arrive hoping to stop him before he can execute order 66

Sounds pretty fun desu

How do you intend to repair two puddles of molten snow?

>"Hands off, or I'll make sure you never play as much as a game of Snakes and Ladders in this town ever again."

Wish?
Fabricate?

Wizard has no sense of right and wrong.

Dispel magic can be counterspell.

And then they'll just counterspell your counterspell.

> he failed his seduction check agianst a virgin neckbeard DM

>I'm gay, so everyone else is gay too!
Fuck off, faggot.

Then the simulacrum counterspell your counterspell counterspell.

>That spell is only abusable if you don't stop the player from doing something that he can do both RAW and RAI
Sure, but that doesn't turn the spell less broken and the idiots who made it less fags.

Anything can happen with a natural 20

And then the DM hits you over the head with a baseball bat for being so full of shit.

Not in 5e

False, skills rolls don't crit.

Even in 3.5 that wasn't true.

>Cutting a creature in half kills
If it's a creature made of flesh and bones, it will. This one is a snowman in shape of human being, you can cut snowman in half without destroying it. Besides, one smooth slice with two handed blade is what? 2d10 damage maximum?

Goddamn /pol/ needs to go.

You all quickly forget that you need significant amounts of ice or snow, and somewhere to keep it for 12 hours where it wont melt in the process of you casting it.

That and a single interruption fucks you up.

Does your character have the luxury of 12 uninterrupted hours of sub-zero temperatures?

>NUUUUHHHHH WHY DOESN'T EVERYONE EMBRACE MY GAYNESS
Fuck off.

Didn't someone in Veeky Forums once spam spare the dying cantrip while slowly cutting off a creature head?

>it can take actions and be affected as a normal creature
You cut it in half, it drops to 0 HP and reverts to ordinary snow.

2E fag here, as far as I know skill checks have always been at or below for sucess. So if anything the best possible roll would be a 1.

1. Subzero temperatures are fucking nothing, there're low as fuck levels spells to resist that for long periods of time
2. At the level you can cast simulacrum you can also teleport to a plane of Ice if you want or to the coldest place in your plane
3. Same for a place in where nobody will interrupt you

We're talking 17th+ levels here

>can otherwise be affected as a normal creature.
>Uses all the statistics of the creature it duplicates.

You might as well argue "it's made of snow so it shouldn't take damage from poison!" or "it's made of snow and doesn't have a real mind so it should be immune to mind-affecting magic."

At which point, the GM says "it's made of snow, so it is actually just a snowman and you were just hallucinating when you thought that it could move and talk and cast spells".

>plane of Ice if you want or to the coldest place in your plane
You mean where all the monsters are?

Veeky Forums had done that and much worse. Another memorable one was keeping alive via spamming Iron Heart Surge because death is "condition lasting more than 1 round"

Hmm, fair point. We need to copy something that can live through being cut in half. Troll maybe?

Have you forgotten what website you're on? We're all faggots here, fella.

Yes, but sometimes there are awesome faggots, like Freddy Mercury.

>everyone else is gay
>no really, they are
Way to project, cocksucker.

> Complaining about balance with late game spells.

If you're worried about balance at those levels, you're playing the wrong game.

Oh man you are misunderstanding me.
I don't give an actual fuck if you brace it or not, but you are just going to have to accept that gay folks exist. I don't know how it effects you so negatively, but I don't give a shit if it does. Your kind just slows down threads and makes shit uncomfortable for a respected demographic here. So basically, I'm not mad that you don't like gays. I'm mad that you are shitposting and making my favorite board sound like /pol/
I don't want Veeky Forums to be /pol/, and with the amount of inteligent conversation and thinly veiled fetish discussion that happens here I'm sure you don't want /pol/ to become Veeky Forums
Go back to your home board or lurk.

Also you are probably offended by gays because you are a little gay yourself. It's OK, I know that's hard for you. But you don't need to take it out on people anonymously on the internet.

>I don't give an actual fuck if you brace it or not
Oh, sure you don't. That's why you don't throw a bitchfit every time someone calls out a scenario where homosexuality is treated as the norm as the bullshit that it is, right?

You sure do care a lot about men fucking each other in their boy pussies. That's pretty gay dude.

user, if you get upset and scream /pol/ every time you see someone demonstrating casual bigotry, you really shouldn't be on Veeky Forums.

Hey man, I've said my peace. But
>I don't care if you embrace gay folks
>I care that you are shit posting

Since your reading comprehension seems to be lacking I made a tl:dr version of my message. Just for you. :^)

If you get upset whenever some demonstrates casual faggotry, you really shouldn't be on Veeky Forums.

Fair point.

Well do those, and see how well it goes

As well as a martial trying to make some arrows in his room in the inn if you go with the "entirely subjective of GM's asspulls". If you prefer I can create a cold plane in where there're zero monsters because I created it for myself and cast simulacrum in there.

>At which point, the GM says "it's made of snow, so it is actually just a snowman and you were just hallucinating when you thought that it could move and talk and cast spells".
The moral of the story is, don't snort crushed ruby while casting Suggestion on yourself. Drugs are bad.

>Instead of drugs, the aristocracy have started hiring "party wizards" to cast mind-affecting magic on them.
Just try not to have a bad trip...

>Casting Time: 12 hours

By RAW, since "a piece of the creature's body" has no listed monetary value, wouldn't it be included in a spell component pouch? For every creature in the multiverse? What kind of mega-wizard makes these pouches?

Also, what happens if you make a Simulacrum out of one of the several artifacts that are literally pieces of a god's body?

Outside of using Wish to cast Simulacrum, a wizard at 20th level with 20 Constitution can make 7 clones:
>91 HP
>45 HP
>22 HP
>11 HP
>5 HP
>2 HP
>1 HP
This is still pretty useful, but they are idiots who can barely cast spells.

With Wish they are basically telling the DM "fuck me, fuck me horribly" and should be using Clone and patience anyways.

Witnessed

Given that the needed component requires interaction with those no-cost elements; and how the spell description is pretty clear about all the parts being central to the spell; and the fact that you have to do the spell over 12 hours with the creature in question within an arms length away for the entire process--I don't think you would be able to use a focus or that it'll ever really come up. If they're that close and that accessible you could just cut off a hair or swab up some saliva, right?

>Also, what happens if you make a Simulacrum out of one of the several artifacts that are literally pieces of a god's body?
A much more interesting question, but I don't think you would be able to successfully argue that tacit omnipresence counts as being within Touch distance.

This could all be avoided by not using retarded systems and/or getting better players.

> that spell is only abusable if you're a GM who doesn't pull Rule Zero out of his ass constantly instead of switching to a system that isn't broken

fixed that for you.

And that costs 10,5k gp and come to life naked. The last 3 will die from a light breeze since they dont even save if they reach 0 HP. And it takes round 6 days with 1 hour for the 3 meals of the day, 1 hour to prepare spells, and sleeping immediately after. At a normal pace it should take 7 days, making a clone per day.

>if the DM use something his legitimate entitled to use in order to prevent me from exploiting something in the game system, his a bad DM.

Nice try, this level of "abuse" is on the same level as Pun-Pun or Old Man Henderson. It's only possible if the GM is a retard who lets anything fly at the table even when it flies in the face of common sense.

Which is probably why it offends you so much.

>"D&D was a mistake."
-Gary Gygax

>each simulacrum gets weaker because they have half the max HP of whatever made it

>Each new simulacrum only obeys the simulacrum that made it forcing the wizard to send the order down the line

>Each simulacrum requires 12 hours of casting time and 1,500gp worth of components

>all in an effort to cast Wish a bunch of times.

>A DM's wet dream is to have a wizard cast wish and fuck up the wording.

Doesn't seem worth it to me.

I'm stealing that idea. thanks senpai

but does the troll have enough wizard levels to cast simulcrum?

Where is the problem here?

>the only retorts to a broken rule is arbitrarily punishing or limiting the player instead of admitting that the rule is broken

And what if that's the idea? given , we can play telephone through 7 clones. If we have the original wizard send the wording for the wish down to the last wizard, that's seven successive fucking ups of the wording by the time it gets cast.

Basically the idea is that you can cast Wish to create and instant free simulacrum, which in turn casts Wish to make yet another instant free simulacrum of you, ad infitum.

There's nothing stopping you aside from your conscience and the inevitable slap across the face from the DM.

>Player exploits one of the few game breaking loop holes
>DM says no
>"F-FUCKING NAZI DM WON'T LET ME RUIN THE GAME FOR EVERYONE ELSE!"

There's no doubt it's completely broken, but what do you expect the DM to do? Just shrug and let you achieve apotheosis?

If you think it'll be exploited, just ban it. There are like three spells in 5e that are even worth banning (Wish, Simulacrum, and Clone) and not having them doesn't kneecap high-level casters in the slightest.

>There's no doubt it's completely broken, but what do you expect the DM to do?
Ban it completely.

I know this is just playing off of a meme, but that's more or less what his opinion was in the end of AD&D and its progeny (so 2e, 3.X, etc.).

The original intention was that AD&D was supposed to be this immutable thing, a set of universal convention and tournament rules like standardized rules for sports, and if you were playing a home game you'd play Basic and borrow AD&D rules when appropriate and as your group learned more of how the Basic game fit together. This is the period where people would ask about houserules in AD&D and he would get upset, before turning around and encouraging people to sideload group-chosen AD&D rules if they wanted a more complex game; it was a big miscommunication snafu in part because he couldn't see the bigger picture of how it all actually related, which was kind of a recurring theme whenever anyone would disagree with him about RPG stuff.

In the years before he died he was a big advocate of narrative-first systems (which isn't to say rules-lite). The impression I got was that he'd be a fan of stuff like Fantasy Flight's Star Wars system that has more of a structure around back-and-forth narrative momentum mechanics (while for example Fate just sort of throws the toolbox of Aspects and Fate points at players to fail or succeed with on their own).

That's what I'm saying. The DM has every right to say no to an exploit if it's going to ruin everyone else's time. The other guy was implying that that would constitute "arbitrarily punishing or limiting the player".

>cast Wish to create and instant free simulacrum, which in turn casts Wish to make yet another instant free simulacrum of you
If you cast Wish your Simulacrum won't have a 9th level spell slot and wouldn't be able to regain it. The idea is, do it normally and your Simulacrum would have a 9th level slot and the Simulacrum would be of you, not itself, and thus still have its own 9th level slot.

An easy RAW argument to circumvent this: Gaining control of a simulacrum counts as becoming more powerful, so the Wish spell fizzles and the slot is wasted.

1,500 gp isn't very much by the time you get 7th level spells
My DM did exactly this. We thought we were just seeing illusions of the BBEG until they all cast spells on us. It was complete bullshit

It's also worth mentioning that the DM gets to determine how effect the clone is at communicating and being a human in general.

By snowman illusion #7 it would be a dangerous waterhead.

No one in the D&D staff has confirmed if a simulacrum loses its spell slot to cast the spell that created it, but it is a valid interpretation of the RAW and RAI.

>It's also worth mentioning that the DM gets to determine how effect the clone is at communicating and being a human in general.
No, he doesn't.

If the first simulacrum (whom I'll call Sim) uses the Simulacrum spell, the next simulacrum (Sim') would be a copy of its creator--which would be Sim. Sim' would therefore not have a 9th level spell slot, since Sim had spent it. Sim' could create Sim'' by using an 8th-level slot to cast Simulacrum, but it can't use Wish, since it has the statistics of its creator, which means its 9th-level slot is spent. Finally, if the wizard is at 20th level, Sim'' can create Sim''' by using its last 7th-level spell slot to cast Simulacrum.

Of course, this is assuming your DM doesn't rule (quite justly) that ordering a creature which is an extension of yourself to cast Simulacrum counts as a use of Simulacrum, dispelling the first use.

There's also the issue that a 20th level wizard with +1 Con would have roughly 102 hit points. Sim' would have 51, Sim'' would have 25, Sim''' would have 12. If 20th-level characters are doing 20th-level things, Sim'' and Sim''' are fucked.

Anything the PCs can do their enemies can do, too.

This is what my favorite GM does. He's an exceptional powergamer and cheesemonger, but he only pulls it out if a player starts doing it first. Since he's better at it than we are, we just avoid it.

I wish it were on that level. Pun-Pun was actually impossible for a player to do, because he used a template that only NPCs in the Forgotten Realms settings g could use. This simulacrum bullshit is actually following the rules, both as written, and as interpreted by the creators.

Now you can always just do as I did when I still played D&D and just say "that's retarded, I'm changing that" but that can make spergs lose their shit, and as others have said already, homebrewing a problem away doesn't mean the system doesn't have that problem. Many GMs, especially new ones lack the confidence or willpower needed to tell their resident wizard powergamer "no".

Wish has it specifically written into its text that the GM should attempt to mess with it. "Casting Simulacrum via Wish or having your simulacrum do so counts as casting Simulacrum" is a pretty mild case.

And there we have it, why it doesn't work the way the abusers want it to.

Which is still not to say that it isn't abusive, just not as bad.

Also it isn't even an option until 17th level.

>Pun-Pun was actually impossible for a player to do, because he used a template that only NPCs in the Forgotten Realms settings g could use.

I don't think it's ever called out as being NPC-only, actually. Even if it were, the original creator only intended it to be a thought exercise, not an actual character, and fully expected DMs to throw physical objects at players who actually tried to play Pun-Pun.

five 7th lvl casting minimum wizards can fuck up a party before it realizes what's going on. Unless they're also a party of full casters of course

Sala
bim?

Each simulacrum would also have fewer spell slots than the previous. The first would have 1 fewer 7th-level slots, from its creator casting Simulacrum. The second would be missing a 7th-level slot and a 9th-level slot (from Sim casting Wish or 9th-level Simulacrum); the third would be missing a 7th-level slot, a 9th-level slot, and an 8th-level slot; and finally the fourth would have no spell slots above 6th level.

Not to disagree with you entirely, mind you. That's still a lot of extra spells. But I'm still in the camp that a simulacrum casting Simulacrum would necessitate the destruction of the first.

"You can cast any spell of 8th level or lower" is general. "If you cast this spell again, any currently active duplicates you created with this spell are instantly destroyed" is specific. As I interpret it, at least.

Hardly anybody is claiming that 5e is well-balanced. They ARE claiming that it was made by people who knoe what they're doing, but what they are doing is recreating the feel of 3e but with enough differences to justify buying new books.

The simulacrums create copies of the original.

Ah, I missed the "touch" range.

Still, I stand by my "it would destroy the initial simulacrum" stance.

As the DM, why would I want to? You've walked right into my trap.

Note: everything is a trap.

That's not even DM fiat either. The spell says the Simulacrum starts out friendly to you. It doesn't say jack shit about it --staying-- friendly.

>The spell says the Simulacrum starts out friendly
It says it "is" friendly. Even if it wasn't, it obeys commands, so it doesn't matter.

If this is really the best you can do, then they seem to have done a pretty good job with that edition.

You can only copy humanoids and beasts anyway. Deities are not going to be humanoid or beast type.
>each simulacrum gets weaker because they have half the max HP of whatever made it
Each one has the original wizard stand around so they make multiple copies of the original, so the HP doesn't continually decrease.

>Each new simulacrum only obeys the simulacrum that made it forcing the wizard to send the order down the line
This is where a major breakdown occurs. You see, each simulacrum acts on "your turn" in combat. Their creator's turn. None of the simulacrums roll initiative. They do not take a turn. So only the one you personally created can act in combat.

Out of combat, even one copy of a full spellcaster frees up a whole lot of bullshit you can do with the extra spells. What if it's a bard and you get infinite healing? The infinite loop is crazy even without directly participating in combat.

We don't technically know if the simulacrum comes into being with spell slots ready at all, but we kinda assume it does since previous versions could do that.

The DM kinda does. It's questionable whether the Sim can even pretend to be human, since it is actually a snowman with no ability to learn. How well does a simulacrum of the king pretend to be the king? I don't fucking know. The spell doesn't say shit about that, and most illusions talk about that kind of thing. I'm still split over whether it can act independently of receiving orders or not.

>This simulacrum bullshit is actually following the rules, both as written, and as interpreted by the creators.
I haven't really seen interpretation answers from JC about simulacrum much. It's still pretty fuzzy on that front. See above for RAW problems.

It also has your memories. If your Wizard is crazy enough to think up this scheme, any Simulacrum of him is probably going to teleport away before it can be given any commands so that it can do the same thing instead.

>"F-FUCKING NAZI DM WON'T LET ME RUIN THE GAME FOR EVERYONE ELSE!"

I shit myself laughing.

>It also has your memories.
It has the same appearance, half the HP, no equipment, and otherwise the same statistics. No mention of its personality, and thus no hint as to whether it has the original's memories. It also cannot learn.

If it doesn't have memories, it's less useful but more obedient. If it does have memories, you know what you do with your simulacrums.