Timeline for Is the spellcaster aware if their clone is destroyed?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 7 at 15:51 | comment | added | DMfiend | My gut says this is correct take on the spell given the description. Since there is no mention that the creator gets "status updates" on the clone after it's created ("no secret rule"), then the creator is in the dark to anything that happens to the clone(s). I'm going to accept this answer. Also, good call referring to Manshoon's lore about his clones. | |
| Mar 7 at 15:45 | vote | accept | DMfiend | ||
| Mar 7 at 11:52 | comment | added | T. Sar | With all of this said - if you're any form of competent spellcaster, you should put some form of magical trap to warn you if your clone was ever destroyed. That Manshoon didn't do it is, honestly, quite annoying. | |
| Mar 6 at 17:13 | comment | added | tuskiomi | I think this is the right answer. The duration of the spell is 'instantaneous', so it's not a case where the spell is ongoing and the caster would know if the spell ended. | |
| Mar 5 at 22:18 | comment | added | Michael Richardson | @HoneyBattery Just that it refers to the soul as a singular, "the soul transfers to the clone". There's no mechanics given for which clone would receive the soul in the case of multiple clones and there is no mention in the rules that souls could be split or duplicated. DM adjudication is definitely needed. I believe that previous editions specifically called out that only the most recent clone was used. | |
| Mar 5 at 22:02 | comment | added | Honey Battery | Does the current version of Clone disallow having multiple clones? | |
| Mar 5 at 20:17 | history | answered | Michael Richardson | CC BY-SA 4.0 |