6
\$\begingroup\$

The clone spell introduces some interesting edge cases regarding creature states. One such case is lycanthropy, which appears to be a type of curse but can also be inflicted through serum, such as poison or an infected bite. I.e. there seems to be a kind of bodily state that corresponds to the affliction, which may influence the clone.

Would the lycanthropy affliction only be relevant prior to the cloning process (if at all)? For example:

  1. A non-were creature creates a non-were clone.
  2. The non-were creature becomes a lycanthrope (with changes to alignment and abilities).
  3. The lycanthrope dies, and its soul returns to the non-were clone (reverted alignment and abilities).

And, vice versa starting with a lycanthrope?

Are there more complex or interesting interactions to consider?

\$\endgroup\$

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
6
\$\begingroup\$

This is a world building question, not a rules question.

Lycanthropy is barely covered in the rules, so edge cases around it are even less likely to be covered.

Your DM (maybe working with any affected player) needs to decide if the body is cursed like a standard disease, or if it is a magical, spiritual curse that follows your soul around on the material plane.

Strict RAW rules fail completely here because 'creature' is never defined and gets worse as the edge cases are explored.

\$\endgroup\$
3
\$\begingroup\$

The creature is still cursed with lycanthropy

There are no secret rules

The creature is cursed with lycanthropy. When the soul enters the clone, it is the same creature. The clone spell itself has no impact on curses. So, the creature is still cursed.

The creature is no longer cursed with lycanthropy

There are no secret rules

The creature is cursed with lycanthropy. When the soul enters the clone, it is the not same creature. So, the creature is no longer cursed.

The DM decides

The clone spell itself is ambiguous about whether the clone is the same creature or a different creature inhabited by the original creature's soul. It refers to the "original creature's" soul, remains and equipment which sort of implies that the new creature is in some way not the original creature, but they share the same soul, so they must be the same creature? Either interpretation is arguable.

PHB p.7 "The DM narrates the results of the adventurer's actions."

\$\endgroup\$
2
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ This is taking the hidden rule thing wrongly. That means they don't keep rules a secret, it doesn't mean they think about everything and every interaction, and they actually do hide rules in odd places despite the rule. The chances of them having thought about this when they made the rules are slim to none. \$\endgroup\$
    – SeriousBri
    Commented Aug 3 at 11:22
  • \$\begingroup\$ @SeriousBri I agree that the rules are incomplete. “No secret rules” means what there is is all there is - if the plain reading is ambiguous, you use rule 0. \$\endgroup\$
    – Dale M
    Commented Aug 3 at 23:02

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .