Simulacrum make "duplicate" not "copy".
Forger can copy signature from original or from memory. Xerox machine need original to make duplicates. Standard higher. Exactness required.
Imagine spell work like MRI machine: analyze layers, create representation.
Your level thirteen wizard can:
-cast 12 hours without interruption
-and keep Pit Fiend ice sculpture frozen 12 hours
-and have Pit Fiend to duplicate
If so, he deserve such potent simulacrum.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect the reason why devs largely haven't really fixed or commented much on these types of issues, is because they are mostly theoretical.
I disagree -- a vast number of monsters have SLAs, and the game could only been improved by having clear guidelines for them. Likewise, magic minions like undead and planar bindings and simulacra and summoned monsters are near-ubiquitous, and the game could only benefit by setting rational limits on those, too. And I did both of those things in one post, so it's not like it would be a lot of effort: they could just clean up the wording and be done with ALL of these issues, all at once.
Granted, a lot of monsters with random SLAs all over the place would then need to be corrected, but they could publish those corrections as a $5 PDF and make a mint off of it.
Finally, I'll re-submit that when DrDeth and I actually agree on something game-related, that something can probably be taken as gospel.
I suspect the reason why devs largely haven't really fixed or commented much on these types of issues, is because they are mostly theoretical. A lot of groups don't get high enough for some of these exploits, and most groups that do don't really try to tactics like this. Those that do probably get shut down by the GM/other players.
So while things like this may definitely need revamping or clarification, they are pretty low on the list of priorities for developers.
Hmmm, If I was developer, and part of my game for the last 15 years was literally broken such that no one could use it ever, I would actually place priority on that!
Also, guidelines on memories and what a simulacrum knows would be nice, as currently, if yo know the big bad of an ap, you can make a simulacrum of him at level 13, then learn all his plans and the locations of all his minions?
Fixing simulacrum at this point would probably require a new edition...it's not a minor errata. Is the current state of simulacrum so problematic that it necessitates a top down overhaul? Is it more significant than other issues, ranging from weakness of rogues or ACG mishaps? Is it significant to stop work on current problems and products? How many tables has the snowcone wish machine showed up, and how many of those times was it GM fiat'ed away?
I suspect the reason why devs largely haven't really fixed or commented much on these types of issues, is because they are mostly theoretical.I disagree -- a vast number of monsters have SLAs, and the game could only been improved by having clear guidelines for them. Likewise, magic minions like undead and planar bindings and simulacra and summoned monsters are near-ubiquitous, and the game could only benefit by setting rational limits on those, too. And I did both of those things in one post, so it's not like it would be a lot of effort: they could just clean up the wording and be done with ALL of these issues, all at once.
Granted, a lot of monsters with random SLAs all over the place would then need to be corrected, but they could publish those corrections as a $5 PDF and make a mint off of it.
Finally, I'll re-submit that when DrDeth and I actually agree on something game-related, that something can probably be taken as gospel.
I suspect any major change to how monsters operate would necessitate a new edition...its more than errata, and a $5 pdf just seems a very inelegant solution. If I want to use a bestiary, I shouldn't have to recalculate things like SLAs for each entry using a separate product.
It's probably easier at that point just to issue an errata on problem spells. That seems to be where the problem comes from, not from imbalance on SLA use in monsters.
I'm sure that Paizo somewhere has a grand list of things they would like to address in a future edition.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. Can you get Wish from a Simulacrum?
Yes.
2. What is meant by "appropriate special abilities" and "a creature of that level or HD" in "It appears to be the same as the original, but it has only half of the real creature's levels or HD (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD)."
A creature with 1/2 levels has appropriate class features for those levels. Abilities not derived from class (such as a gnome's SLAs or a Pit Fiend's poison) still have statistics derived from their quantity of HD (most commonly caster level and/or saving throw DCs). BAB, Hit Points, Feats, and Skill ranks are all based on and limited by the number of HD that the creature possess and thus are adjusted accordingly.
Beyond that, the creature still retains anything left over, just as a simulacrum of an elf still has elf racial abilities, so too does a simulacrum of a hellhound breath fire, and so too does an efreeti have the wish SLA. Nothing in the spell says that it does not and there is nothing in the rest of the rules that anchors the SLA to any level-based mechanic.
|
I spent some time last night going over the books on this and lean more heavily towards 'special abilities' referring to the last section of the stat blocks in the bestiaries.
As a rule, and I'm just asking here, wouldn't keeping the SLA's for a Simulacrum seem like a way to dodge the various Summon Monster spells? With the Summon Monster spells, you get the full arsenal of abilities a particular creature has, but on a timer. Simulacrum is effectively permanent barring violence and that seems like a dodge, especially since you could create an army of Simulacra, at which point all the Summon Monster spells seem like wasted spell slots.
I understand that there has been some back and forth on what the term 'special abilities' means, but there is a specific part of the stat blocks that has special abilities for each creature. The CRB covers special abilities in broad terms, but again, when creating a duplicate of a creature, wouldn't the special abilities under its stat block be what Simulacrum should be referring to?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's important to remember that any house rules you make for bestiary creatures also apply to PC races and quite a few of them have some very usual abilities that are, like most monster abilities, not directly tied to HD beyond caster levels.
For example, Aasimar cast daylight spells, Tieflings darkness, and gnomes cast dancing lights, ghost sound, prestidigitation, and speak with animals. Humans get a bonus feat. Dwarfs have a +2 on specific saves. Lots of other stuff too. Now there's not really anything functionally different from an efreeti's SLAs and an aasimar's. Both are simply racial features of being those respective creatures.
I think what everyone is upset about is that this makes simulacrum arguably the strongest spell in the game (and I think they might be right). It also has the potential to be wildly unbalancing for many games (though not all) just by using it for its intended purpose (creating less powerful duplicate minions of creatures) which means it is almost certain to create problems by its very usage if the GM isn't capable of dealing with it reasonably (and no, I don't really consider GM-fiat reasonable).
The problem is not whether X spell does Y but that it does Y and you need to decide what that means for you and your specific campaign needs. You may need to house rule it and if you do, I recommend using the following writeup that I made for Wraithstrike a couple years back. Here it is.
Simulacrum
School illusion (shadow); Level sorcerer/wizard 7
Casting Time 12 hours
Components V, S, M (sculpture of the target plus powdered rubies worth 500 gp per HD of the simulacrum)
Range 0 ft.
Effect one duplicate creature
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance noSimulacrum creates an illusory duplicate of any creature. The duplicate creature is partially real and formed from clay, ice, mud, sand, snow, or stone. It appears to be the same as the original, but it has only half of the real creature's levels or HD (and the appropriate hit points, BAB, saving throws, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD). You can't create a simulacrum of a creature whose HD or levels exceed twice your caster level. A creature familiar with the original might detect the ruse with a successful Perception or Sense Motive check (DC 10 + caster level of the simulacrum spell).
If a creature casts spells as a class (such as a dragon casting spells as a sorcerer), then the duplicate casts spells at half that level (so a duplicate of a creature with 12 HD who casts spells as an 8th level sorcerer would have 6 HD and cast as a 4th level sorcerer). If the creature has spell-like abilities, the duplicate's caster level with those abilities is halved. In addition, the duplicate cannot use any spell-like abilities that mimic spells that wouldn't be available to a spellcaster with caster level equal to the duplicate's HD x 1.5 (so a duplicate with 10 HD loses access to any spell-like ability that mimics a spell requiring a 16th or higher level caster). If the original creature possessed Spell Resistance, the duplicate's spell resistance is reduced for each HD fewer than the original (so a 10 HD duplicate of a creature with 20 HD would have spell resistance equal to the original creature -10).
The duplicate creature retains gross physical characteristics of the original creature, including natural attacks, natural armor, size, ability scores, and traits based on its type (such as construct or undead traits). If the original creature possessed any of the following special abilities or attacks, the duplicate does too: Ability Damage or Drain, Amphibious, Bleed, Blindsense, Blightsight, Breath Weapon (halve any damage dice, to a minimum of 1 die; i.e. 6d6 becomes 3d6), Burn, Change Shape, Channel Resistance, Constrict, Curse, Damage Reduction, Disease, Distraction, Energy Drain, Fast Healing (equal to original's fast healing or 1/2 the duplicate's HD, whichever is less), Fear, Flight, Frightful Presence, Gaze, Immunity, Light Blindness, Light Sensitivity, Paralysis, Plant Traits, Poison, Pounce, Powerful Charge, Pull, Push, Rake, Regeneration (a duplicate instead gains Fast Healing as noted above), Rend, Resistance, Rock Catching, Rock Throwing, Scent, Spell-like abilities, Spell Resistance, Stench, Summon, Swallow Whole, Telepathy, Trample, Tremorsense, Trip, Vulnerabilities, Web, and Whirlwind.
At all times, the simulacrum remains under your absolute command. No special telepathic link exists, so command must be exercised in some other manner (but a simulacrum will not harm you). A simulacrum has no ability to become more powerful. It cannot increase its level or abilities. If reduced to 0 hit points or otherwise destroyed, it reverts to clay, ice, mud, sand, snow, or stone and melts instantly into nothingness. A complex process requiring at least 24 hours, 10 gp per hit point, and a fully equipped magical laboratory can repair damage to a simulacrum. Spells that heal damage are only half as effective on a simulacrum. A limited wish spell may be used to heal the simulacrum of 10 hit points per caster level.
This simulacrum has received a good bit of positive feedback as it retains the spirit and tactical awesomeness of the original, fits in a wider variety of campaigns (seriously, how cool would it be for a Jafar-type vizier wizard to create a pawn-Sultan out of sand?), provides a better DC for discerning clones (which I think makes it more useable as a plot device), puts a hard limit on CL, SLA, and Spell availability gained from the simulacrum (which prevents wish-machines for those who don't jive with that), and it gives a wide variety of universal abilities on monsters that the simulacrum can retain, however if it's a highly specific ability (such as a succubi's profane gift or a tarrasque's super-regeneration) then it's harder to acquire than merely casting simulacrum. :)
The 1/2 healing from magical healing is plot-armor (so you can't just cast cure on someone and discern that they are false) and it's 1/2 the amount because they have 1/2 HD (evens out), and you can still labratory them (as a mage), and limited wish is kind of like a heal spell for them specifically.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I spent some time last night going over the books on this and lean more heavily towards 'special abilities' referring to the last section of the stat blocks in the bestiaries.
As a rule, and I'm just asking here, wouldn't keeping the SLA's for a Simulacrum seem like a way to dodge the various Summon Monster spells? With the Summon Monster spells, you get the full arsenal of abilities a particular creature has, but on a timer. Simulacrum is effectively permanent barring violence and that seems like a dodge, especially since you could create an army of Simulacra, at which point all the Summon Monster spells seem like wasted spell slots.
I understand that there has been some back and forth on what the term 'special abilities' means, but there is a specific part of the stat blocks that has special abilities for each creature. The CRB covers special abilities in broad terms, but again, when creating a duplicate of a creature, wouldn't the special abilities under its stat block be what Simulacrum should be referring to?
Summoned monsters don't cost 500 gp per HD. Also I don't know where you are getting those healing rules, but it's not from the spell.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I spent some time last night going over the books on this and lean more heavily towards 'special abilities' referring to the last section of the stat blocks in the bestiaries.
As a rule, and I'm just asking here, wouldn't keeping the SLA's for a Simulacrum seem like a way to dodge the various Summon Monster spells? With the Summon Monster spells, you get the full arsenal of abilities a particular creature has, but on a timer. Simulacrum is effectively permanent barring violence and that seems like a dodge, especially since you could create an army of Simulacra, at which point all the Summon Monster spells seem like wasted spell slots.
I understand that there has been some back and forth on what the term 'special abilities' means, but there is a specific part of the stat blocks that has special abilities for each creature. The CRB covers special abilities in broad terms, but again, when creating a duplicate of a creature, wouldn't the special abilities under its stat block be what Simulacrum should be referring to?
Depends on what you're using the summons for. Generally speaking, for most purposes a simulacrum of a summon monster choice is going to be highly underwhelming by comparison to the summon monster version as things like HP, BAB, Saving Throws, Skills, and so on are 1/2 has potent.
While some creatures can retain usefulness as minions (erinyes can act as decent spotters because of their true seeing, and creatures with truespeak can be useful in talking with foreign intelligences), generally speaking summons are most commonly used for more direct purposes such as being disposable meat-shields and shock troops. Neither of which is particularly strong for simulacrum.
The "odd demand" and "completely expendable" nature of summoning spells is one of the more potent aspects of them. You have a pretty good control over where you place your creatures and why, and should they get nuked with dismissals, holy words, or broken down in damage, they are doing their jobs just fine and you can have some more 1 round later.
|
|
Summoned monsters don't cost 500 gp per HD. Also I don't know where you are getting those healing rules, but it's not from the spell.I spent some time last night going over the books on this and lean more heavily towards 'special abilities' referring to the last section of the stat blocks in the bestiaries.
As a rule, and I'm just asking here, wouldn't keeping the SLA's for a Simulacrum seem like a way to dodge the various Summon Monster spells? With the Summon Monster spells, you get the full arsenal of abilities a particular creature has, but on a timer. Simulacrum is effectively permanent barring violence and that seems like a dodge, especially since you could create an army of Simulacra, at which point all the Summon Monster spells seem like wasted spell slots.
I understand that there has been some back and forth on what the term 'special abilities' means, but there is a specific part of the stat blocks that has special abilities for each creature. The CRB covers special abilities in broad terms, but again, when creating a duplicate of a creature, wouldn't the special abilities under its stat block be what Simulacrum should be referring to?
No, it doesn't, but dropping 5500 gold for a permanent Simulacrum of a Solar complete with all abilities is hardly an expense that justifies that much power. That's just my two cents on it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think anyone is arguing that a spell doing that with a small expense is good, Norgrim. Just that the existing version of simulacrum does that, and could use fixing.
It's not a good mechanic if people in individual games have to replace it with their own mind caulked version. We'd all be better off with a unified simulacrum that functions reasonably on its own.
|
|
I spent some time last night going over the books on this and lean more heavily towards 'special abilities' referring to the last section of the stat blocks in the bestiaries.
As a rule, and I'm just asking here, wouldn't keeping the SLA's for a Simulacrum seem like a way to dodge the various Summon Monster spells? With the Summon Monster spells, you get the full arsenal of abilities a particular creature has, but on a timer. Simulacrum is effectively permanent barring violence and that seems like a dodge, especially since you could create an army of Simulacra, at which point all the Summon Monster spells seem like wasted spell slots.
I understand that there has been some back and forth on what the term 'special abilities' means, but there is a specific part of the stat blocks that has special abilities for each creature. The CRB covers special abilities in broad terms, but again, when creating a duplicate of a creature, wouldn't the special abilities under its stat block be what Simulacrum should be referring to?
Depends on what you're using the summons for. Generally speaking, for most purposes a simulacrum of a summon monster choice is going to be highly underwhelming by comparison to the summon monster version as things like HP, BAB, Saving Throws, Skills, and so on are 1/2 has potent.
While some creatures can retain usefulness as minions (erinyes can act as decent spotters because of their true seeing, and creatures with truespeak can be useful in talking with foreign intelligences), generally speaking summons are most commonly used for more direct purposes such as being disposable meat-shields and shock troops. Neither of which is particularly strong for simulacrum.
The "odd demand" and "completely expendable" nature of summoning spells is one of the more potent aspects of them. You have a pretty good control over where you place your creatures and why, and should they get nuked with dismissals, holy words, or broken down in damage, they are doing their...
Fair enough, but I tend to view Summon Monster IX as the effective cap on what the game allows in terms of minions and all that goes with it since there are no restrictions on what abilities they can bring to bear.
It makes me raise an eyebrow if a lower level spell not only allows a duplicate of creatures even beyond the options for SM IX, but also allows all abilities? In fairness, like Anzyr pointed out, SM spells don't have a 500gp per HD requirement, but that requirement hardly seems sufficient.
|
|
I don't think anyone is arguing that a spell doing that with a small expense is good, Norgrim. Just that the existing version of simulacrum does that, and could use fixing.
It's not a good mechanic if people in individual games have to replace it with their own mind caulked version. We'd all be better off with a unified simulacrum that functions reasonably on its own.
I agree brother, and I'm not trying to ruffle anyone's feathers on this, just tossing my thoughts out there regarding it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, it doesn't, but dropping 5500 gold for a permanent Simulacrum of a Solar complete with all abilities is hardly an expense that justifies that much power. That's just my two cents on it.
Hence why people find simulacrum OP. You either house rule it or it's OP. That's all there is to it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fair enough, but I tend to view Summon Monster IX as the effective cap on what the game allows in terms of minions and all that goes with it since there are no restrictions on what abilities they can bring to bear.
You're operating on a very odd view then. Planar Binding and Gate both trump summon monster in terms of options as planar binding a creature to be your ****-minion is not actually difficult for a mage, and with core items (karma beads are easiest) you can gate in and control a solar who will follow your orders. Not 1/2 a solar. A real, honest to god CR 23 Solar, complete with 20th level cleric casting, its SLAs, BAB, weaponry, resistances, everything, it's all there and it's on demand.
The Summon Monster spell is again a cheap on-demand summoning option. It requires no expended materials, it requires no prep-time sans the 1 round casting. It benefits from Augment Summoning and can poop out 1, 1d3, or 1d4+1 minions where you want them. The minions are 100% expendable. The summon monster spells still have their place even next to Simulacrum and Planar Binding spells (though Planar Binding is better for long-term minions who are closer to your level in terms of power).
It makes me raise an eyebrow if a lower level spell not only allows a duplicate of creatures even beyond the options for SM IX, but also allows all abilities? In fairness, like Anzyr pointed out, SM spells don't have a 500gp per HD requirement, but that requirement hardly seems sufficient.
Which is why most people think Simulacrum is OP. That said, one should not underestimate the value of being able to convert a summoning spell into a 13th level super-cleric with no reservations or special expenditures either.
|
|
No, it doesn't, but dropping 5500 gold for a permanent Simulacrum of a Solar complete with all abilities is hardly an expense that justifies that much power. That's just my two cents on it.Hence why people find simulacrum OP. You either house rule it or it's OP. That's all there is to it.
Yep, definitely house ruled ;) Who knows, maybe there will be an official 'this is how we envisioned it to work' response some day. Good gaming folks :)
Hence why people find simulacrum OP. You either house rule it or it's OP. That's all there is to it.Not really. Kinda. I can see your point. But, not really. Simulacrum can't be judged in a vacuum. It requires a setting and known monsters. You can't just say you're making something of twice the HD to get the normal monster. It's not in the bestiary. It'd require GM permission. Similarly, getting wish through a half powered monsters requires a GM call to determine what's appropriate for the half HD version. That's not house ruling. That's the spell by design.
No, it's not. The spell does not require the GM to determine what is appropriate. It tells you exactly what the Simulacrum gets. Wish is an appropriate Spell-Like ability for a 5 HD Efreeti, therefore the Simulacrum gets it. It doesn't require anymore GM permission then taking Power Attack. And a PC can easily determine what creatures are in the GM's world. That's what Knowledge Skills are for.
Reeeaally? Do you have a reference for this wish-granting 5 HD efreeti?
Yes, an Efreeti's SLA's are not tied to HD. Therefore it is appropriate for a half-HD Efreet to have. Being able to cast Wish as an SLA is an intrinsic property of being an Efreet, the same as having four limbs is for a human.
That's because most SLA's are not based on HD progression. Efreet's don't gain (or lose) Wish at any particular HD. It never improves or weakens either. An 18 HD Efreet with 4 level of Fighter still has the same Wish SLA as a 10 HD Efreet. Therefore the GM doesn't need to say anything, since the SLA's don't change. To say otherwise is a houserule.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
GM's don't prescribe what SLA's are based on HD. The rules do. If the rules do not say an SLA is HD dependent, that's because it is not. If a SLA *is* dependent on HD, the rules say so. RAW therefore demands that if a SLA doesn't say it is HD dependent that it not be so. Thus, RAW demands that a half-HD Efreet have Wish as a SLA as it does not say that an Efreet's SLAs depend on HD.
Reeeaally? Do you have a reference for this wish-granting 5 HD efreeti?Yes, an Efreeti's SLA's are not tied to HD.
In light of the line that special abilities and spellcasting power might improve or even be added whole cloth with racial HD advancement, I don't believe that you can positively prove that the efreeti's particular SLAs are not an example of such (or else you would have done so by now, surely?). I admit that the RAW soundest approach is to presume that they are not tied to racial HD - but a GM who rules that they are is contradicting nothing.
In light of the line that special abilities and spellcasting power might improve or even be added whole cloth with racial HD advancement, I don't believe that you can positively prove that the efreeti's particular SLAs are not an example of such (or else you would have done so by now, surely?). I admit that the RAW soundest approach is to presume that they are not tied to racial HD - but a GM who rules that they are is contradicting nothing.Reeeaally? Do you have a reference for this wish-granting 5 HD efreeti?Yes, an Efreeti's SLA's are not tied to HD.
Proof?
Also, Drow have their SLA caster level explicitly based on their HD Uwotm8, while efreet as you can see above, do not.
Drow don't advance by racial HD and therefore would not be an example of what we are talking about. The line referring to gaining new special abilities, increasing spellcasting power, etc, is specific to racial HD advancement.
That said, the published stats are certainly a point in favor of SLAs being decoupled from advancement for efreet. I wasn't aware that you were referring to a specific published creature earlier.
I do think that in light of it it is even more natural to assume that by default the SLAs for an advanced efreet do not change.
However, I still do think that the line I quoted earlier gives the DM a fairly broad carte blanche to rule on special ability advancement in the absence of specifics.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I would rule that spellcasting and caster level in general should be tied to HD, such that a creature with half the HD would have half the caster level and therefore cannot preform a spell requiring a higher caster level.
The real problem is that the Efretti is a 10 HD monster with caster level 11 casting a 9th level spell for free. Why exactly does it exist again, except to be abused in one manner or another? The Efretti should have double the HD and double the caster level. At least then it would be much more difficult to tamper with, IMO. The fact that you can use Planar Binding to call wish-granting Efretti at a whim once you hit level 11 is a problem in and of itself.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unless the creature (be it gnome or efreeti) explicitly call out its SLAs as a quality of its advancement then it is not a quality of its advancement.
Making a simulacrum of an aasimar doesn't cause an aasimar to lose its daylight SLA, and doing the same with a djinn doesn't either. It's a quality of their race, not their level. They have no SLA progression, nor does it say "Efreeti of X HD and greater have this SLA" like some creatures actually do (Balor Lords are noted as having additional special abilities for example).
This isn't a debate at this point. One cannot demand "proof" otherwise because they don't understand how proof works. Currently speaking, the rules do not say that the SLAs are a product of the efreeti's HD. As such, the onus of proof is on the person insisting that the efreeti's HD are somehow giving it the ability to cash wish. The onus of proof does not require anyone else to find text that says that an effect not based on HD is not based on HD, anymore than we should have to find text saying that elven low-light vision is not based on HD to justify that elves have low-light vision.
Let's be real here people.
As such, the onus of proof is on the person insisting that the efreeti's HD are somehow giving it the ability to cash wish.
:/
...Well, perhaps I have not made my position thoroughly clear, because I don't seem to recognize it in your post.
My position is that the incomplete/missing rules as relating to special ability advancement give the DM a fairly broad carte blanche to rule on specific instances of such. That's probably the intent, tbh: to just bat it to the DM instead of trying to write a universal rule.
I'm not actually insisting that special abilities must always have a certain relationship to racial HD advancement. I am saying that ruling whether they do or do not falls to the purview of a DM for any specific game, because the rulebook says "um... maybe?"
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The real problem is that the Efretti is a 10 HD monster with caster level 11 casting a 9th level spell for free. Why exactly does it exist again, except to be abused in one manner or another? The Efretti should have double the HD and double the caster level. At least then it would be much more difficult to tamper with, IMO. The fact that you can use Planar Binding to call wish-granting Efretti at a whim once you hit level 11 is a problem in and of itself.
During the pathfinder playtest years ago, it was noted that by utilizing spells (such as planar binding or simulacrum) that efreeti could be abused for wishes. The devs at the time noted that they'd look into it and possibly make it impossible to do things like planar bind them for wishes or other such things.
Instead, we got a highly nerfed wish spell compared to its 3.5 predecessor, one that is actually not that great unless you are somehow getting it for free, and the SLA loopholes were plugged (there's no more wishing for treasure/magic items), and the efreeti itself is in a rather amusing situation of being a very mediocre caster despite having wish. See, the caster level of the efreeti which is relatively low by wish standards is still used to calculate any spell effect that comes into being through its wish SLA, and the efreeti's DCs aren't that great for the level at which you'd be doing these sorts of things (they have a mere +2 Cha, which means DC 21 top end).
Efreeti uses a wish to emulate a spell? You're getting a low-end version. Generally speaking, efreeti are most useful as out of combat support (they are too fragile to be used in combat as simulacrums and getting your bound efreeti to be loyal is too valuable to just get them murdered in combat with enemies much bigger than them) and for getting your inherent modifiers (the manuals are grossly overpriced). Things like having your efreeti replicate healing spells, divination spells, and essentially acting as a free spellcasting services buddy is probably the safest way to use them. Their low-ish caster level is also a problem because they're relatively easy to dispel.
Of course using efreeti for free wishes is pretty much par for the course. There's a sorceress in a Paizo published module (I forget the name off the top of my head but I can go find it if requested) wherein the NPC sorceress antagonist has a bound efreeti that grants her and her dragon buddy's wishes. If you reverse engineer her stats, you find that this djinn has provided her with a +3 inherent modifier to each stat, implying that she's using the efreeti for exactly the same sorts of things that PCs do (though PCs might go the extra mile and get a pair of efreeti to go ahead and top it off to +5).
The planar binding spell that can be used to call up an efreeti requires you to be 11th level. Simulacrum requires 13th. By the time that you get the ability to naturally call up an efreeti or create a minifreeti, your party likely has means to cast anything you want it to cast for you anyway and often with more power. In this case, sans inherent modifiers, efreeti are again most useful to party's that lack well-rounded support (say you're missing a dedicated healer) or are dealing with a party of spontaneous casters (in which case the efreeti can be milked for utility spells like greater teleport, plane shift, etc).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As such, the onus of proof is on the person insisting that the efreeti's HD are somehow giving it the ability to cash wish.:/
...Well, perhaps I have not made my position thoroughly clear, because I don't seem to recognize it in your post.
My position is that the incomplete/missing rules as relating to special ability advancement give the DM a fairly broad carte blanche to rule on specific instances of such. That's probably the intent, tbh: to just bat it to the DM instead of trying to write a universal rule.
I'm not actually insisting that special abilities must always have a certain relationship to racial HD advancement. I am saying that ruling whether they do or do not falls to the purview of a DM for any specific game, because the rulebook says "um... maybe?"
I was mostly making an open statement to no one in particular, though it was spurred most heavily by some mixed posts that are getting too close to the forbidden argument (which actually pops up pretty frequently).
Basically, if your argument amounts to "But it doesn't say it doesn't" or something similar, you're on really shaky ground. When I read "Well the rules don't say that the X creature's SLAs AREN'T divorced from HD", I feel an overwhelming urge to facepalm so hard that I'd fit in with Dullahan.
"Well the rules don't say my human can't breath fire like an ancient gold wyrm so..."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Incidentally, you can get Simulacrum at 9th level if you're a samsaran witch.
Yeah, Samsarans are goofy. :P
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh summoners, how I long to love you, how I hate you.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Of course using efreeti for free wishes is pretty much par for the course. There's a sorceress in a Paizo published module (I forget the name off the top of my head but I can go find it if requested) wherein the NPC sorceress antagonist has a bound efreeti that grants her and her dragon buddy's wishes. If you reverse engineer her stats, you find that this djinn has provided her with a +3 inherent modifier to each stat, implying that she's using the efreeti for exactly the same sorts of things that PCs do (though PCs might go the extra mile and get a pair of efreeti to go ahead and top it off to +5).
That would be the Seven Swords of Sin module and the sorceress is Tirana the Enchantress. Specifically, she bound the efreet so her pet dragon could have a plaything to cast spells for him. I mean, really, an efreet was reduced to a wish-generating plaything for a dragon. Considering how elitist and racist Efreet are, I suspect granting PCs wishes and then going free is a lot less humiliating than what Tirana did.
Also, on another note, background lore for Legacy of Fire indicates the BBEG was using a mortal to trade wishes. In that, he would grant the mortal wishes, in exchange, the mortal would also make wishes that would benefit the BBEG or his allies.
Planar Binding Efreet for free wishes? A-Okay in Paizo's book!