Troll Lord Games

I haven't played or GM'ed C&C up to high level. I was jut reading the Clone spell and noticed that there is no down side to the spell.

The AD&D 1st Ed had this caveat: "However, the duplicate is the person,
so that if the original and a duplicate exist at the same time, each knows of
the other's existence; and the original person and the clone will each
desire to do away with the other, for such an alter-ego is unbearable to
both. If one cannot destroy the other, one (95%) will go insane (75% likely
to be the clone) and destroy itself, or possibly (5%) both will become mad
and commit suicide. These probabilities will occur within 1 week..."

In C&C, for 5K G.P. a high level wizard can duplicate himself every 2-8 months... Maybe the downside aspect should be revisited?

Yeah, I'd institute the downsides, especially since I'd also allow the 9th level "Elminster" version. Which has no down sides.

Treebore wrote:Yeah, I'd institute the downsides, especially since I'd also allow the 9th level "Elminster" version. Which has no down sides.

Ok, it's not just me. BTW, what is the "Elminster" version?

Arduin wrote:

Treebore wrote:Yeah, I'd institute the downsides, especially since I'd also allow the 9th level "Elminster" version. Which has no down sides.

Ok, it's not just me. BTW, what is the "Elminster" version?

I don't have the write up handy, but its a 9th level version of the Clone spell that they had "Elminster" develop. I think they developed it to explain how he "survived" things he did not actually survive. They also said that one Mage of the Zhentarim had access to it, to explain how he kept surviving, despite being 16th level. IE, if he had access to it, how did he use it, when he was officially 16th level? I don't know, maybe it isn't 9th level, maybe its 8th.

Treebore wrote:

Arduin wrote:

Treebore wrote:Yeah, I'd institute the downsides, especially since I'd also allow the 9th level "Elminster" version. Which has no down sides.

Ok, it's not just me. BTW, what is the "Elminster" version?

I don't have the write up handy, but its a 9th level version of the Clone spell that they had "Elminster" develop....

Got it thanks. I never really got into the Forgotten Realms setting nor the books.

Arduin wrote:

Treebore wrote:

Arduin wrote:

Treebore wrote:Yeah, I'd institute the downsides, especially since I'd also allow the 9th level "Elminster" version. Which has no down sides.

Ok, it's not just me. BTW, what is the "Elminster" version?

I don't have the write up handy, but its a 9th level version of the Clone spell that they had "Elminster" develop....

Got it thanks. I never really got into the Forgotten Realms setting nor the books.

I believe a version of it was used "off-camera" to explain why Tenser survived the murder/betrayal of Rary and Robilar (none of which happens in *my* Greyhawk, but I think it's the same plot device to explain why Tenser survived the attack that helped spawn the Greyhawk Wars, whereas Otiluke did not).

I just read this spell too. For a "Downside" I just assumed it could only work on a target that was dead. Thus it was a resurrection kind of spell. However, again, as you pointed out, there is no down side. Even resurrection drops your stats a bit.

OD&D's clone spell has no downside, and the C&C version of the spell emulates that rather than the AD&D version. If there's to be a downside, it's of the CK's choosing.

Traveller wrote:OD&D's clone spell has no downside, and the C&C version of the spell emulates that rather than the AD&D version. If there's to be a downside, it's of the CK's choosing.

Consistency, as they say, is the crime.

Some rules go to the root, others to the first child, and others seem to be drawn from the black sheep cousin.

This is why I have continually said that thinking of using the d20 SRD as a guide to "fill in gaps" for C&C is incorrect; it is certainly not how the game was designed, in my opinion.

But... I'm fine with "Castle Keeper" rules, except that it doesn't say there should be any downside. Maybe just add that, even as a suggestion like "use of this spell may have ramifications subject to the Castle Keeper's discretion" so its hinted at but not enforced.

serleran wrote:

Traveller wrote:OD&D's clone spell has no downside, and the C&C version of the spell emulates that rather than the AD&D version. If there's to be a downside, it's of the CK's choosing.

Consistency, as they say, is the crime.

Some rules go to the root, others to the first child, and others seem to be drawn from the black sheep cousin.

This is why I have continually said that thinking of using the d20 SRD as a guide to "fill in gaps" for C&C is incorrect; it is certainly not how the game was designed, in my opinion.

But... I'm fine with "Castle Keeper" rules, except that it doesn't say there should be any downside. Maybe just add that, even as a suggestion like "use of this spell may have ramifications subject to the Castle Keeper's discretion" so its hinted at but not enforced.

[William Powell voice]Not a bad idea...[/William Powell voice]

serleran wrote: Maybe just add that, even as a suggestion like "use of this spell may have ramifications subject to the Castle Keeper's discretion" so its hinted at but not enforced.

I would favor this rather than specific rules. That way a CK would have latitude. The downside was added in AD&D. Most likely because Gary had run into problems with the 1st version of the spell. I can certainly see why...

I think the "downside" implemented in AD&D was highly contrived and artificial. In fact, the only instance I can recall of a clone actually trying to kill the original was in Timothy Zahn's The Last Command, when Luuke the clone tried to kill Luke. That occurred about fifteen years after AD&D was published, and the only reason the event happened in the first place was that the clone's thinking was deliberately warped.

As to the text itself, I honestly don't think reminder text that there may be a downside of the CK's choosing is necessary.

Traveller wrote:I think the "downside" implemented in AD&D was highly contrived and artificial.

Mm okay. The question is WHY did Gary do it in the first place? I personally don't think that he sat around and just, out of the blue, put draconian restrictions in the spell because he was feeling grumpy that day. As to what came after in published works to highlight those restrictions, that is not reflective as to why the original decision was made...

I would have thought the why was readily apparent. For the same reason he put in language in the wish spell that essentially says to do everything in your power to twist and corrupt the intent of the wish: game balance. Gary knew that not putting restrictions on wish would break the game. He likely encountered a similar issue with clone, but the fact he had issues with both wish and clone doesn't change my opinion that the restrictions are both contrived and artificial.

Regarding the whole issue of referring to d20 to fill in gaps, people really shouldn't. For example, in editing Monsters & Treasure I came across an issue with how the sword of wounding and weapon of wounding function. Prior to the edit the sword and weapon both did constitution damage. All well and good except for the fact that monsters don't have attributes. Using d20 to fix the sword wouldn't work because the sword IS the d20 version. The solution was to go back to OD&D and use that version of the sword as a basis to create a new sword and weapon.

Traveller wrote:but the fact he had issues with both wish and clone doesn't change my opinion that the restrictions are both contrived and artificial.

Well yes. They are made up spells. The entire text of the spell is contrived and artificial. That wasn't my point to this post. The POINT was that without a downside, the spell can be easily abused.

My point is equally simple: it's the CK's responsibility to ensure such abuse doesn't occur, rather than expecting the rules to take care of it.

The rules are the servant, not the master.

Traveller wrote:My point is equally simple: it's the CK's responsibility to ensure such abuse doesn't occur, rather than expecting the rules to take care of it.

The rules are the servant, not the master.

Indeed. I think I will just rule that in order for a "Clone" to become active the original has to have died, and that once a Clone does become active, the gods will not allow a Raise Dead/Resurrection, or even Wish to work on the "original", because the Clone is now the original. If a player wants duplicates of their character running around, they will have to use the Simulacrum spell.

I agree with Traveller 100%

Players who want to abuse spells to achieve immorality are actively seeking to break the game. Can it be done, sure it's easy. But there should be a understanding that doing that is the wrong path. Some players see it as a challenge to subvert anything the DM can throw at them, but really? You want every High level bad guy to have endless clones also? The "arms race" is a zero sum game.

Clone is and can be a fun spell. In the 4 year Whiterock game I ran the party ended up having tissue samples taken for cloning without their knowledge. Well sort of, Lorus the Lich-Librarian Time Stopped them, took the samples, and limited wished the wounds away. So they knew something happened but could not figure out exactly what... Much later they noticed a new assistant in the Library named Hatter that looked very much like a party member. gnome wizard, that was lost. Of course some other magics where used to make the new assistant more tractable, because the original was not good servant material.

ADDED: As long as I'm telling the story I should add he also hit them with a spell called "Binding Secret" (8th Level) that is a supercharge GEAS which prevents them from taking about, leading anyone, or revealing "fight club", errr I meant the Hidden Library. Ah good times.

mgtremaine wrote:I agree with Traveller 100%

Players who want to abuse spells to achieve immorality are actively seeking to break the game.

I wasn't even thinking about immortality (in my game any clone is a different person, much like a twin and is thus an NPC). It was more about verisimilitude. As written one could expect wizards to clone themselves to gain powerful allies, etc.

Yep, allies, magic producing factories, etc... Yes, I've had it tried on me before.

Treebore wrote:Yep, allies, magic producing factories, etc... Yes, I've had it tried on me before.

Right. Or if their was a spell where the caster could create 1,000 g.p. at a shot without restrictions. Yes, the GM could house rule the spell to tone it down. But, a new GM and players might just roll with it and ruin their game. There are reasons why caveats have been put into powerful spells (including the ones in C&C) and not just left up for everyone to figure out by stepping in a big pile of you know what...