Hi, i'm just turned 13 with my wizard and i focused attention to simulacrum spell. I was wondering....it could be used for game-breaking.
Only if the DM isn't paying attention. Otherwise, no problem.
The question is not "if Wish is an appropriate ability for an 11 HD creature", it's "if Wish is an appropriate ability for an 11 HD Solar."Can we generalize from that answer to 11 HD cretures in general? No. Which is why it's in the realm of GM adjudication.
Postcard-enough for you?
Well, I'm still curious what an 11 HD Solar would look like.
Well, I'm still curious what an 11 HD Solar would look like.
The question is not "if Wish is an appropriate ability for an 11 HD creature", it's "if Wish is an appropriate ability for an 11 HD Solar."Can we generalize from that answer to 11 HD cretures in general? No. Which is why it's in the realm of GM adjudication.
Postcard-enough for you?
11 Hit dice instead of the normal 22:
Concerning spells, I'd drop him to caster level 9 instead of 20 which makes him unable to cast spells above level 5. I'd just let the same apply for spell-like abilities, any spell equivalent above 5, remove it. Statistics such as BaB and saves can easily be changed due to the HD change.The easiest way, would be to treat it as a Solar with 11 negative levels.
No matter what, it will make a hell of a pet for a cheap cost.
I don't really mind those wishes, the solar I make, is gonna sit in a factory and mass produce Everburning Torches, he is gonna earn his price in no time!
I'd drop him to caster level 9 instead of 20 which makes him unable to cast spells above level 5. I'd just let the same apply for spell-like abilities, any spell equivalent above 5, remove it.
Did you make that ruling knowing that spell levels and caster levels work independently of one another where spell-like abilities are concerned (ie - it is perfectly legal to have a fireball at CL 2, if it's a spell-like ability).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you come up with HD progressions for every monster? Seems like a bunch of work for limited payoff.
Furthermore it's all incredibly subjective, game rules should not rely on DM fiat to function well.
Those two factors really highlight the problems with Simulacra, DM homework and subjective rules adjudication.
Some groups are willing to deal with those sorts of issues but how does this spell work at all in Organized Play without being an incredible headache? And yes I know PFS stop prior to the arrival of 7th level spells.
|
So you come up with HD progressions for every monster? Seems like a bunch of work for limited payoff.
Furthermore it's all incredibly subjective, game rules should not rely on DM fiat to function well.
Those two factors really highlight the problems with Simulacra, DM homework and subjective rules adjudication.
Some groups are willing to deal with those sorts of issues but how does this spell work at all in Organized Play without being an incredible headache? And yes I know PFS stop prior to the arrival of 7th level spells.
I agree it is a fubar spell as written, but a good DM can make it work as intended.
One of the developers weighed in on another thread basically saying it is a DM fiat kind of spell in the same way Planar Binding is.
Did you make that ruling knowing that spell levels and caster levels work independently of one another where spell-like abilities are concerned (ie - it is perfectly legal to have a fireball at CL 2, if it's a spell-like ability).I'd drop him to caster level 9 instead of 20 which makes him unable to cast spells above level 5. I'd just let the same apply for spell-like abilities, any spell equivalent above 5, remove it.
Yes, I am aware of that.
But the question was limiting the special abilities of the simulacrum due to the HD decrease, and as there is no prior mechanic to reducing spell-like abilities, I used the one that was most similar (and simplest).
but how does this spell work at all in Organized Play without being an incredible headache?
IMO, the game should not be bent and twisted and forced into a straitjacket to meet the needs of Organized Play. In Organized Play, as well as in any game where the GM doesn't want to bother to adjudicate the spell, you can just ban it.
(I'm still ticked off a bit at the 3.0-3.5 change to command.)
Now, how would I, in practice, adjudicate the spell?
Assuming I was pressed for time, my approach would be to sub in the stats for the (12 HD) Movanic Deva and have spellcasting as a 10th-level cleric. (Prior to the Bestiary 2, I'd have grabbed the ToH Revised version of the Movanic and added the quick Advanced template.)
Assuming there was time, the player who wanted to create the solar-simulacrum would get to sit down and build an 11 HD Outsider by the rules in the Bestiary, add appropriate abilities to Solar it up, then I'd look at it and delete/reduce any abilities he included that I think are too powerful.
|
Sounds like basically your GM has banned the creatures from his game except as plot points.Planar Binding has comsequences. My DM says that djinni or efreeti are really resilent to accomplish wishes if forced to. So if i bind them they will surely "modify" the wish meanings in something bad for me. Or if i succeed to dominate them, i would be surely chased by other djinni as soon as they discover what i did.
My DM also use an houserule that djinni language is "special": their language is made of words that mean a thing and is opposite too. so "raise" could mean raise or lower and so on. (that's a way for making REALLY REALLY hard to get free wishes by simply binding these creatures)Your DM looks like he's basically stifled the djinn completely, instead of trying to use it in his game. At this point, I'd question the wisdom of trying to get around his rulings, simply because he'll always find a reason why you can't do it.
As for using simulacrum, it's already been pointed out that it wouldn't include any supernatural qualities, of which wish certainly falls under.
Yes he's a terrible DM, how dare he stop you breaking the game with stupid loop holes. The nerve of the fellow. *rolls eyes*
What would your version of a Solar simulacrum look like, then?Funny You should ask that.....
Solar at HD 1 thogh 23.... for my games.[snip]
Interesting. Thanks, Ughbash! That still seems a bit hefty to me (quite a bit better than what you can get with the spell Planar Ally and with a permanent duration, for instance), but it's sort of within the ballpark.
My basic complaint is this, though: Creating a servant that's half as tough as something that's twice as powerful (or more) than you is a lame idea, leaving aside the fact that the correlation between Hit Dice and power level is very weak (although they're more correlated in Pathfinder than in 3.0 or 3.5).
game rules should not rely on DM fiat to function well.
Have to completely disagree with you on that one, although I vastly prefer the term GM discretion to GM fiat. The rules simply cannot stand on their own. They are designed from inception to work in conjunction with a GM. GM interpretation always has and always will be necessary in any version of PF/D&D I am aware of.
I can't even conceive of a rules set that would be so perfect and so immune to interpretation that GM discretion would not be necessary. Such a rules set, including set rulings for every crazy idea any one of a million highly intelligent and devious gamers might possibly come up with, would consume volumes, if not entire shelves, of books.
I keep seeing the same argument popping here and there again and again although it has been addressed many times over with different examples.
The infuriating argument is this:
"The simulacrum of another creature has the half of the abilities a normal creature of it's kind has due to it having half the HD from a fully grown speciment.As such it doesn't have the spell like abilities of it's normal species " Then they go on happily houseruling the issue.
The basic flaw this laughable limitation exhibits (other than the fact that it is a stretch to the rules that creates unnecessary houseruling where it shouldn't exist and with no guidelines whatsoever) is that it doesn't accomplish its purpose:
Overall reduction of power for the simulacrum and prevention of wish factories.
So as noted before by me and later from a person called pad300,you can create a simulacrum of an efreeti with 8 levels at more or less the same level as you can the plain efreeti.The same is true for other creatures like solars and pit fiends so no way around it here.
The only limitations that are truly at the DM's discretion are:
1)The knowledge of the creature which as noted above could only be losing a spot check against a disguise (too badly),but can range as I'd like to add to the point it requires you to have perfect knowledge of a specific creature through decades of study before being able to copy it with a simulacrum or anywhere between the two.
or
2)The fact that the simulacrum has it's own mind and can turn against you either indirectly or by making itself immune to getting the commands (through becoming deaf or casting a silence spell at you for example).The last thing is a terrifying proof that the risks the spell are many to the recipient unless he is devious enough to evade them.How does he do that?With interesting role-playing of course.
I keep seeing the same argument popping here and there again and again although it has been addressed many times over with different examples.
The infuriating argument is this:
"The simulacrum of another creature has the half of the abilities a normal creature of it's kind has due to it having half the HD from a fully grown speciment.As such it doesn't have the spell like abilities of it's normal species " Then they go on happily houseruling the issue.
The basic flaw this laughable limitation exhibits (other than the fact that it is a stretch to the rules that creates unnecessary houseruling where it shouldn't exist and with no guidelines whatsoever) is that it doesn't accomplish its purpose:
Overall reduction of power for the simulacrum and prevention of wish factories.So as noted before by me and later from a person called pad300,you can create a simulacrum of an efreeti with 8 levels at more or less the same level as you can the plain efreeti.The same is true for other creatures like solars and pit fiends so no way around it here.
The only limitations that are truly at the DM's discretion are:
1)The knowledge of the creature which as noted above could only be losing a spot check against a disguise (too badly),but can range as I'd like to add to the point it requires you to have perfect knowledge of a specific creature through decades of study before being able to copy it with a simulacrum or anywhere between the two.
or
2)The fact that the simulacrum has it's own mind and can turn against you either indirectly or by making itself immune to getting the commands (through becoming deaf or casting a silence spell at you for example).The last thing is a terrifying proof that the risks the spell are many to the recipient unless he is devious enough to evade them.How does he do that?With interesting role-playing of course.
What you find infuriating and laughable, I and others see as logical and in clear accord with the design intent of the spell. I believe that another poster stated that the designers have even explicitly acknowledged that this is a spell which needs heavy DM discretion applied.
What is infuriating and laughable to me are players who continually seek loopholes in spell descriptions or feats or combat maneuvers to gain unbalancing powers so they can "win" a cooperative game designed to be entertaining and challenging for all involved. Those players need to be reined in hard by GM discretion, in my opinion. YMMV.
Saying you need knowledge of a creature isn't really a limitation. The player will just make a knowledge check and say he knows what he needs to know. What is the DC for a noble djinn? 23 if you consider it a rare creature like the tarrasque? Even a player who doesn't have ranks in knowledge (planes) could easily invest several ranks at his next level up and easily make that DC.
The only thing the GM has as a defense is his fiat. That's why people are calling it broken as written.
The reason it is laughable is it doesn't accomplice what its inventors wanted it to accomplish and the reasons that it is infuriating is that it keeps coming after being debunked as useless again and again.
Aside from that D&D is not necessarily a cooperative game.It actually has no set roles and the players could even be opposing forces if they wanted to.It can be challenging and entertaining in a variety of ways and not only the "let's get in the dungeon" way.I personally find pretty challenging and entertaining the way a simulacrum can be played through.
It's not only about power it's about the flavor balance kills.The only people I've heard talking about the "win" situation are people who don't know the rules good enough and are pissed of by others knowing them better and want to accuse them somehow.In fact nobody wants to "win" the game but it is only natural for someone both in and out of game to want to raise his station and power,otherwise there wouldn't be strong and weak people in the fantasy stories we run-its the direct effect of some accomplishing it far better than the others.
Moreover what makes you think I'm a player when I'm actually a DM?
|
11 Hit dice instead of the normal 22:
Concerning spells, I'd drop him to caster level 9 instead of 20 which makes him unable to cast spells above level 5. I'd just let the same apply for spell-like abilities, any spell equivalent above 5, remove it. Statistics such as BaB and saves can easily be changed due to the HD change.
That's probably the easiest route to take.
Simulacra, like shapechanging, summoning, dominate monster, leadership, monsters as characters, diplomacy, etc, etc. isn't so much a problem as creatures in the game that have stupid powers that nobody in their right mind would allow a player to have. If Efreeti didn't have wishes, wights couldn't create infinite spawn, shambling mounds couldn't have infinite constitution scores, etc, etc. these sorts of issues wouldn't come up, and polymorph / wild shape / leadership / monsters as PCs, summoning / calling spells, dominate, etc. wouldn't have had to be tweaked, tweaked again, and finally abandoned by the designers of D&D.
Dragons are probably the easiest thing, as a GM, to adjudicate Simulacra-izing, since you can usually find half-HD approximations of various Dragons, thanks to their progressions.
Humanoids with class levels also are easy, just halve the class levels and go with it. (Although your GM may frown upon the concept of making a hundred simulacra of a 20th level Cleric and using them as create food and remove disease bots. Whatever god granted that 20th level Cleric their power might refuse to empower the simulacra, leaving you with a hundred 10th level Adepts...)
But for a Wizard, an army of half-strength copies of oneself is hardly a terrible investment, since you can send these 6th level Wizards out to cast spells / adventure / etc. for money and power.
I imagine that the land of Nex has hundreds of wizardly simulacra laboring away in the golemworks and alchemical factories, brewing potions, scribing scrolls, engaging in spell research, training familiars, casting spells, etc. Cheaper to feed and house than apprentices, they never talk back, and they'll never gain more power and become threats to their creators.
But for a Wizard, an army of half-strength copies of oneself is hardly a terrible investment, since you can send these 6th level Wizards out to cast spells / adventure / etc. for money and power.
For the record, I don't think anyone objects to creating flunkies half as powerful as you (or less). The problem is with creating flunkies half as powerful as someone way more powerful than you. That "twice your caster level in hit dice" is just a bad idea (cf. Gate).
Hrmm- forum software ate my post but fortunately I Ctrl-C prior to submittal :D If my post was deleted for some reason then go ahead and delete this as well :(
I think GM fiat/discretion is an okay thing, although plenty of people would disagree. I however don't like Fiat being the primary limitation on a spell effect.
Wish, Simulacra, Calling Spells (Binding, Ally, Gate), 3.x Polymorph/ Shapechange, etc always had wildly variable effects based upon GM interpretation. While they all simulate pretty cool effects that are relatively common in the inspirational literature I believe that they could be written in a more straight forward way that is a) less dependent on GM Fiat/discretion, b) retain the essential flavor while still keeping the effect at the proper level of scaling and c)not generate more work than necessary for the GM.
Simulacra as it's currently written fails in those regards. It's Fiat dependent, it's scaling is poor, and it generates a big logistical nightmare.
While common sense might dictate that a Simulacra of a Solar doesn't get all the CR 22 Solar SLAs, SAs, SDs, and SQ the simple fact of the matter is that monsters often get access to SLAs at a lower level than their CR or HD would otherwise indicate. The Genies being a major hallmark of this.
Now I think an argument could definitely be made that in order to have a SLA with a level of x that you should have the necessary number of HD. Under such a ruling regular Genies wouldn't have Wish as a SLA but high HD Genies (17+ HD) would have access to Wish. This would retain their essential flavor while keeping SLAs in line with HD.
However we are talking a major house rule at this point which merely highlights the problem with spells that are subject to excessive GM discretion.
Saying you need knowledge of a creature isn't really a limitation. The player will just make a knowledge check and say he knows what he needs to know. What is the DC for a noble djinn? 23 if you consider it a rare creature like the tarrasque? Even a player who doesn't have ranks in knowledge (planes) could easily invest several ranks at his next level up and easily make that DC.
The only thing the GM has as a defense is his fiat. That's why people are calling it broken as written.
Knowledge checks can be modified through the rule of circumstance bonuses and penalties where the DM can give a bonus or penalty of any amount to a d20 roll.So 23?No in my campaign it is 1023 as djinis are really cryptic and almost nonexistent in the universe just to set an example.
Apart from that what does it make you think that by "knowing" someone specific to copy completely with magic the only thing you have to do is a barely successful knowledge check?
I acknowledge it as an option but it isn't necessarily the case.
One could argue that you have to know every ability of the creature and every single ability there is to know adds 5 to the DC.
Wet another could argue that you need to know personally the individual in order to know it's character that it's part of it that its part of knowing it.
See the word "know" has a pretty heavy meaning if taken a better look at as the githzerai Zerthimon would add.
So it is one of the two things that are actually DM's discretion.
|
|
For the record, I don't think anyone objects to creating flunkies half as powerful as you (or less). The problem is with creating flunkies half as powerful as someone way more powerful than you. That "twice your caster level in hit dice" is just a bad idea (cf. Gate).
I agree, actually. That is a terrible idea. Even if you have to actually meet a high level spellcaster before you can 'sim' them, that's not a huge drawback in some game settings. Even only being able to create a simulacra of someone of your own CL / HD (which will then be half your CL / HD) is a freakishly cool thing. Or it could be based on CR, so that some higher HD but not overly magical critters, such as dinosaurs, would be easier to 'sim' than, say, dragons, or wizards.
Although, if I was a 20th level Wizard or Cleric, a Wish or Miracle that any Simulacrum made of me *by anyone* is instead loyal to me, not them, would be a fun precaution to take.
*Poof* <newly made simulacra teleports in>
"A nice likeness. Who the hell made you?"
"Peridoxus of the Sanguine Sands."
"Ah. I will have to send him a token of my appreciation. Now go muck out the nightmare stables."
The reason it is laughable is it doesn't accomplice what its inventors wanted it to accomplish and the reasons that it is infuriating is that it keeps coming after being debunked as useless again and again.
Aside from that D&D is not necessarily a cooperative game.It actually has no set roles and the players could even be opposing forces if they wanted to.It can be challenging and entertaining in a variety of ways and not only the "let's get in the dungeon" way.I personally find pretty challenging and entertaining the way a simulacrum can be played through.
It's not only about power it's about the flavor balance kills.The only people I've heard talking about the "win" situation are people who don't know the rules good enough and are pissed of by others knowing them better and want to accuse them somehow.In fact nobody wants to "win" the game but it is only natural for someone both in and out of game to want to raise his station and power,otherwise there wouldn't be strong and weak people in the fantasy stories we run-its the direct effect of some accomplishing it far better than the others.
Moreover what makes you think I'm a player when I'm actually a DM?
My apologies for my somewhat thin-skinned response to what I perceived to be your overly dismissive and insulting post. If I misjudged your intent, I have wronged you, sir.
We seem to have vastly different playstyles and assumptions about the game. To me the game is, or at least should be, cooperative. I'm not fond of campaigns that place players in opposition to each other or encourage PvP action. But that's my personal taste, and your point that different playstyles are just as legitimate is excellent and conceded.
I'm not certain I understand the point you are making regarding power and flavor.
Your point about "win" and not knowing the rules and being pissed off by people who know them better strikes me as provocative and insulting if directed at me, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it isn't. The counterpoint I would make is that rules mastery is utterly meaningless if you do not have a deep understanding and appreciation of Rule Zero, the bedrock upon which the entire rest of the ruleset rests, the idea that the DM is in charge, and has discretion to interpret, modify or even flat out discard any and all rules (in consultation with the players, of course) in the interest of running a good game.
I concede your point that most people are highly interested in making their character more powerful. I would just counter that the better players I know also are careful to do that in ways that don't threaten the entire balance of the game. I don't have much respect for (as you may have guessed from my previous post) the type of player who is constantly seeking to twist the rules or find loopholes to evade design intent and make his character ruler of all. That character may know the rules better than anyone else at the table, but he's still an epic fail in my book as a player. YMMV.
I made no assumption as to whether you are player or DM. In fact, I assumed that, like many of us on these boards, you do both at various times.
Even if you could make a simulacrim of an efreet, they are still evil. I can image a Monadic Deva having something to say about abusing this power.
A simple visit from the above angel would most likely halt the abuse.
This is a very good point. I imagine most superpowerful being probably have both the means to detect simulacra of themselves or at least would eb likely to eventually hear of their creation, and would also likely be highly unamused by the practice.
It would take some real chutzpah to create a simulacrum of Mordenkainen, for example.
Even if you could make a simulacrim of an efreet, they are still evil. I can image a Monadic Deva having something to say about abusing this power.
A simple visit from the above angel would most likely halt the abuse.
This is a very good point. I imagine most superpowerful being probably have both the means to detect simulacra of themselves or at least would eb likely to eventually hear of their creation, and would also likely be highly unamused by the practice.
It would take some real chutzpah to create a simulacrum of Mordenkainen, for example.
For me this was a pretty good usage of the spell as a core element in an adventure and in this case a Simulacra of a Epic Caster was still a pretty cool BBEG.
The shift to no material component from the original needed is a bit frustrating as a DM because now every tom, dick and harry can do the same stunt.
Honestly having some material link to the original was a very evocative feature of the spell and definitely supported in the inspiration literature. I can't really think of a particularly compelling reason for removing it other than it might potentially offend practitioners of other religions/belief structures. But if that's the case why create a Witch class ;)
Even if you could make a simulacrim of an efreet, they are still evil. I can image a Monadic Deva having something to say about abusing this power.
A simple visit from the above angel would most likely halt the abuse.
Why would angels care about evil efreet clones?
Also, evil or not, it's still under your absolute control.
Even if you could make a simulacrim of an efreet, they are still evil. I can image a Monadic Deva having something to say about abusing this power.
A simple visit from the above angel would most likely halt the abuse.
This is a very good point. I imagine most superpowerful being probably have both the means to detect simulacra of themselves or at least would eb likely to eventually hear of their creation, and would also likely be highly unamused by the practice.
It would take some real chutzpah to create a simulacrum of Mordenkainen, for example.
** spoiler omitted **
For me this was a pretty good usage of the spell as a core element in an adventure and in this case a Simulacra of a Epic Caster was still a pretty cool BBEG.
The shift to no material component from the original needed is a bit frustrating as a DM because now every tom, dick and harry can do the same stunt.
Honestly having some material link to the original was a very evocative feature of the spell and definitely supported in the inspiration literature. I can't really think of a particularly compelling reason for removing it other than it might potentially offend practitioners of other religions/belief structures. But if that's the case why create a Witch class ;)
I agree, and actually, even though I don't think the spell is broken if you have a strong GM, I think it would be better/easier to adjudicate if it had a lower possible HD target and/or retained the requirement for a material link.
Make a Celestial simalcrum and acquire the "Celestial Blessed" template on the cheap...
Make a Devil simalcrum and acquire the "Devil Bound" template on the cheap (remember, you can now write both sides of the contract)...
I'm not familiar. What are those and where might I find them?
|
Even if you could make a simulacrim of an efreet, they are still evil. I can image a Monadic Deva having something to say about abusing this power.
A simple visit from the above angel would most likely halt the abuse.
Why would angels care about evil efreet clones?
Also, evil or not, it's still under your absolute control.
Is it under your "absolute control"? I didn't know that. Either way, "Monadic Deva are stoic watchers of the Ethereal Plane and Elemental Planes. They search those planes for fiendish enclaves, battle evil planar monsters such as xills, and act as celestial liaisons to the genies and elementals..." Maybe I'm overestimating this duty but I'd say that includes warning any unawares adventurer of the repercussions of manipulating an efreeti (real or not). I'd say a visit from the friendly Monadic Deva is reasonable but if you disagree it's cool. no bad blood.
The reason it is laughable is it doesn't accomplice what its inventors wanted it to accomplish and the reasons that it is infuriating is that it keeps coming after being debunked as useless again and again.
Strange. Every time I tell a player, "No, that doesn't work, there are no 20 HD efreeti in this game world," my ruling stops that from happening. Not a single failure yet.
Maybe you missed page 5 of the GameMastery Guide, where it mentions the GM is the game designer? And thus, logically, as fully authoritative as Jason Bulmahn or James Jacobs when issuing as ruling?
(NB: Actually, there might be some 20 HD efreeti in a game I run. But they wouldn't have 20 Outsider HD, they'd have 13 Outsider HD like a noble efreeti, maybe a couple other Outsider HD, and then class levels. So the result, after halving, would be say, 8 Outsider HD and 2 fighter.)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Strange. Every time I tell a player, "No, that doesn't work, there are no 20 HD efreeti in this game world," my ruling stops that from happening. Not a single failure yet.
Does this mean that the game rules mean nothing, and that you've wasted every penny you've spent on gaming products, since you have the amazing power that we all lack, to just blanket forbid any rules use that you don't like?
I mean, if 'don't use the rules' is the big answer, then what's my motivation to buy them?
This 'the rule isn't broken, you are for using it' logic is both an uncalled-for personal insult (since the OP didn't insult people who *didn't* find simulacra problematic, and so there's no 'justification' to return fire), and encourages designers of products you pay for to not bother to actually make them work, since you apparently expect any purchaser to just fix anything themselves.
In the rush to score points by characterizing anyone who has an issue with the spell as being paralyzed by an inability to adapt or say 'no,' and showing off your amazing ability to craft a house-rule (which, surely, nobody in the history of gaming ever dared to do before you boldly blazed that trail), you end up celebrating bad design and touting the wonders of mediocrity.
Is it that unreasonable to expect better than 'barely usable, and only with a lot of adjudication?' Are my standards too high?
(And I'm not calling out the Pathfinder folk, who, for the most part, ported over a poorly built legacy 3.5 spell, warts and all. It just so happens that some of their changes, the removal of the XP cost, and the lack of requiring a bit of the creature to be duplicated, only made the spell *even more dubious.*)
Strange. Every time I tell a player, "No, that doesn't work, there are no 20 HD efreeti in this game world," my ruling stops that from happening. Not a single failure yet.Does this mean that the game rules mean nothing, and that you've wasted every penny you've spent on gaming products, since you have the amazing power that we all lack, to just blanket forbid any rules use that you don't like?
I mean, if 'don't use the rules' is the big answer, then what's my motivation to buy them?
Hmm. When did I say 'don't use the rules'?
Ravendark said my interpretation of the word "appropriate" was proved useless because all you need is a 20 HD efreeti and suddenly it doesn't stop creation of a 10 HD simulacrum, which being the same HD as a Bestiary efreet, clearly would have the Bestiary one's wish power.
My response is, "there are no 20 HD efreet". If you're going to claim that such a response is saying "don't use the rules", well, show me where the rules say 20 HD efreet exist. The Bestiary mentions 13 HD nobles, but nothing about 20 HD ones. The PCs can try a Knowledge check (as Ravingdork suggested) in an effort to think of one, but that doesn't actually imply one exists.
Does this mean that the game rules mean nothing, and that you've wasted every penny you've spent on gaming products, since you have the amazing power that we all lack, to just blanket forbid any rules use that you don't like?
I mean, if 'don't use the rules' is the big answer, then what's my motivation to buy them?
Ignoring the strawman in the first paragraph to focus on the second question: You buy the rules because they form the parameters within which the players are expected to perform so that something approaching a relative balance of power and consistency of resource management between characters is achieved. Those parameters are not binding on the DM, who is well within his rights as DM to modify those parameters in the service of fun, which is the whole point of a game.
Thus, if your group thinks it's fun that someone can squeeze a 100% obedient 20-HD efreeti servant out of a 7th-level spell, then knock yourself out. If see's definition of "fun" doesn't include such, then that's okay too.
My beef with simulacrum is that it's got the wrong duration. Its duration should be permanent, not instantaneous.
|
|
Ignoring the strawman in the first paragraph to focus on the second question: You buy the rules because they form the parameters within which the players are expected to perform so that something approaching a relative balance of power and consistency of resource management between characters is achieved. Those parameters are not binding on the DM, who is well within his rights as DM to modify those parameters in the service of fun, which is the whole point of a game.Does this mean that the game rules mean nothing, and that you've wasted every penny you've spent on gaming products, since you have the amazing power that we all lack, to just blanket forbid any rules use that you don't like?
I mean, if 'don't use the rules' is the big answer, then what's my motivation to buy them?
Apologies if you feel caught in the crossfire. I just have grown tired of people who show up in threads about this rule or that to say, 'I don't have a problem with this rule, 'cause I don't use it, so you must be a sucky GM.'
Thus, if your group thinks it's fun that someone can squeeze a 100% obedient 20-HD efreeti servant out of a 7th-level spell, then knock yourself out. If see's definition of "fun" doesn't include such, then that's okay too.
If I thought it was fun to abuse the spell, why would I go on a public forum and call it abusable and suggest ways to curb it's abuse?
Does that even make a lick of sense?
Wouldn't I instead say, 'Nothing wrong with this spell! It rocks! Don't ever change!'?
My beef with simulacrum is that it's got the wrong duration. Its duration should be permanent, not instantaneous.
That does feel counter-intuitive, even if it's the same thing they do with wall of stone, wall of iron, etc. It 'feels' like Instantaneous should mean that the simulacra or wall of stone should blink into existence and then disappear, like a fireball, but is code for 'not dispellable, once created, the magic goes away, but the wall or sim remains.'
Some other term, such as 'lasting,' might have been better there.
The reason it is laughable is it doesn't accomplice what its inventors wanted it to accomplish and the reasons that it is infuriating is that it keeps coming after being debunked as useless again and again.
Aside from that D&D is not necessarily a cooperative game.It actually has no set roles and the players could even be opposing forces if they wanted to.It can be challenging and entertaining in a variety of ways and not only the "let's get in the dungeon" way.I personally find pretty challenging and entertaining the way a simulacrum can be played through.
It's not only about power it's about the flavor balance kills.The only people I've heard talking about the "win" situation are people who don't know the rules good enough and are pissed of by others knowing them better and want to accuse them somehow.In fact nobody wants to "win" the game but it is only natural for someone both in and out of game to want to raise his station and power,otherwise there wouldn't be strong and weak people in the fantasy stories we run-its the direct effect of some accomplishing it far better than the others.
Moreover what makes you think I'm a player when I'm actually a DM?
My apologies for my somewhat thin-skinned response to what I perceived to be your overly dismissive and insulting post. If I misjudged your intent, I have wronged you, sir.
We seem to have vastly different playstyles and assumptions about the game. To me the game is, or at least should be, cooperative. I'm not fond of campaigns that place players in opposition to each other or encourage PvP action. But that's my personal taste, and your point that different playstyles are just as legitimate is excellent and conceded.
I'm not certain I understand the point you are making regarding power and flavor.
Your point about "win" and not knowing the rules and being pissed off by people who know them better strikes me as provocative and insulting if directed at me, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume...
Yes,you guessed right.Neither this nor the previous poster had as a purpose to insult,mainly to alert radically.The first in order to stop seeing the same damned thing come up again and again (it really got annoying).The last part about the "win" situation was to alert about what impression the phrase gives:At least to me it sounds bad. I use to not make assumptions about people I talk with so I didn't actually know if you where one of those people or not.It was something like a test if you will.
It is a fact that we do have different play styles but it is a fact that we do have the same also (I also play the way you probably play AND the other way around).
The part of balance VS flavor is inappropriate to discuss in another guy's thread.
The reason it is laughable is it doesn't accomplice what its inventors wanted it to accomplish and the reasons that it is infuriating is that it keeps coming after being debunked as useless again and again.Strange. Every time I tell a player, "No, that doesn't work, there are no 20 HD efreeti in this game world," my ruling stops that from happening. Not a single failure yet.
Maybe you missed page 5 of the GameMastery Guide, where it mentions the GM is the game designer? And thus, logically, as fully authoritative as Jason Bulmahn or James Jacobs when issuing as ruling?
(NB: Actually, there might be some 20 HD efreeti in a game I run. But they wouldn't have 20 Outsider HD, they'd have 13 Outsider HD like a noble efreeti, maybe a couple other Outsider HD, and then class levels. So the result, after halving, would be say, 8 Outsider HD and 2 fighter.)
First they can have actual levels and not HD as mentioned in your post and every single mine.If they advance by level AND knowledge is not a factor,they can create them.
Secondly,if again knowledge is not a factor,the creature doesn't have to exist(as long as it is backed up by the system and therefore could exist).
So yes,it doesn't work at all if you don't consider knowledge as a factor which is another limitation altogether.Unless the player has enough good faith in you to not search it more thoroughly.
If they advance by level AND knowledge is not a factor,they can create them.
How you cut a monster with levels in half is a matter of GM discretion, and accordingly so is what special abilities are appropriate. A standard 10 HD efreeti who advanced with 10 levels of fighter is, by my judgment, much more accurately modeled on the half as a "5 HD outsider with 5 levels of fighter", which means he doesn't have 10 HD of efreeti, which means I have plenty of reason to say he doesn't have the amount of efreeti to qualify for the wish power. If you make different choices, simulacrum can be a serious problem . . . but that's, IMO, mostly a reason not to make that other choice.
Secondly,if again knowledge is not a factor,the creature doesn't have to exist(as long as it is backed up by the system and therefore could exist).
No. If knowledge is not a factor, simulacrum is still limited to creating duplicates, which means an original must exist. You can't make a duplicate of something that doesn't exist, since you're not duplicating anything. That the game mechanics do not forbid something is not proof the something actually exists.
(I note it is also pretty difficult to explain how your character would go about trying to make a duplicate of something your character doesn't know to exist. Sounds to me like a recipe for expending the material component and getting nothing, since you're duplicating nothing.)
That does feel counter-intuitive, even if it's the same thing they do with wall of stone, wall of iron, etc. It 'feels' like Instantaneous should mean that the simulacra or wall of stone should blink into existence and then disappear, like a fireball, but is code for dispellable, once created, the magic goes away, but the wall or sim remains.'
Some other term, such as 'lasting,' might have been better there.
I agree that a better term would have been useful, but the terms are what they are. By my reading, a simulacra remains a magical creation. It's a phantasm. Wall of stone at least just creates nonmagical stone. Simulacrum however uses magic to transform ordinary materials into a phantasm that duplicates a creature. That just screams ongoing magic to me. If simulacrum had a "permanent" duration, it would then be subject to dispel magic and related effects, which, IMO, seems perfectly reasonable.
No. If knowledge is not a factor, simulacrum is still limited to creating duplicates, which means an original must exist.
My thinking as well. I don't see anything in the spell's text that leads me to believe that it allows a spellcaster to rummage through the monster creation and monster advancement rules in order to cobble together a custom-built servant.
If they advance by level AND knowledge is not a factor,they can create them.
How you cut a monster with levels in half is a matter of GM discretion, and accordingly so is what special abilities are appropriate. A standard 10 HD efreeti who advanced with 10 levels of fighter is, by my judgment, much more accurately modeled on the half as a "5 HD outsider with 5 levels of fighter", which means he doesn't have 10 HD of efreeti, which means I have plenty of reason to say he doesn't have the amount of efreeti to qualify for the wish power. If you make different choices, simulacrum can be a serious problem . . . but that's, IMO, mostly a reason not to make that other choice.
Secondly,if again knowledge is not a factor,the creature doesn't have to exist(as long as it is backed up by the system and therefore could exist).No. If knowledge is not a factor, simulacrum is still limited to creating duplicates, which means an original must exist. You can't make a duplicate of something that doesn't exist, since you're not duplicating anything. That the game mechanics do not forbid something is not proof the something actually exists.
(I note it is also pretty difficult to explain how your character would go about trying to make a duplicate of something your character doesn't know to exist. Sounds to me like a recipe for expending the material component and getting nothing, since you're duplicating nothing.)
I am duplicating something.A creature of my dreams or imagination or design.If knowledge doesn't count as a factor in knowing how to make it,I can.Where does it say that you have to duplicate an EXISTING creature again?I'll tell you nowhere.It says that it must be a duplicate of something but that something doesn't have to be real.
Secondly the idea of creating something with half HD and half levels is totally incorrect according to the system.It is like making the duplicate of an Assassin 6/Rogue 6 character and getting the results of an Assassin 3/Rogue 3 character or better yet the duplicate of a 20th lvl wizard with only the high level abilities and the 5th and above level spells and not the low level ones.The phrase half levels or HD doesn't mean that you get to mysteriously wipe the levels or HD in any order you wish.There are rules for reducing HD and levels and those write backwards.
If you insist in your theory then that means that the trick with the 20 lvl wizard can be done as well.
I am duplicating something.A creature of my dreams or imagination or design. .... Where does it say that you have to duplicate an EXISTING creature again? I'll tell you nowhere. It says that it must be a duplicate of something but that something doesn't have to be real.
Emphasis added:
Simulacrum creates an illusory duplicate of any creature. The duplicate creature is partially real and formed from ice or snow. It appears to be the same as the original, but it has only half of the real creature's levels or HD....
What the spell doesn't say is that a caster can duplicate something that exists only in his imagination or dreams.
I am duplicating something.A creature of my dreams or imagination or design
Simulacrum duplicates "any creature". "Creature" is defined in the Core Rulebook as "an active participant in the story or world. This includes PCs, NPCs, and monsters." Things that only exist in a PC's imagination, dreams, or designs are not creatures so defined, and so simulacrum cannot duplicate them. If there are no 20 HD efreeti in a game world, 20 HD efreeti are not valid subjects for simulacrum.
Secondly the idea of creating something with half HD and half levels is totally incorrect according to the system
Interesting assertion. Quote me a page number in the rules or link me to the statement in the PRD.
There are rules for reducing HD and levels
First, in Pathfinder, there aren't any rules for reducing levels. The reducing levels rules from 3.x were thrown out in favor of permanent negative levels. Any system of deciding how to reduce levels is pure GM discretion. We do have a system for reducing HD (Bestiary, p.296), but it does not have any statement about in what order you would remove levels vs. HD, so we are again in an area of pure GM discretion.
Second, we're not reducing a specific creature's HD or levels; we're creating an illusory duplicate that has half as many HD or levels. Since there are no specific rules for how to do this, the decision is, again, entirely at the GM's discretion.
Finally, we can note that Pathfinder specifically provides for at least one case of monsters that earn class levels before fully progressing to maximum HD for creatures of that type — dragon cohorts. We have no particular reason to believe this is only possible for dragons. So we do not know that any particular efreeti with 10 levels of fighter was first 10 HD and then 10 levels; he may have been five and three and then five and then seven, for example.
So even if we did have an efreeti with 10 levels of fighter in a campagin, and we had rules that strictly applied last-in-first-off order for removal of levels/HD, and we held that those rules applied to making a simulacrum, we still would not necessarily wind up, by the rules, with a simulacrum of that efreeti having 10 HD and no fighter levels. What mix of HD and levels that you get at the end would still be the product of GM's discretion.
The definition of a creature as someone participating in a story or world does not exclude an imaginary creature (as it can actively participate in a story and world the same way a dead creature does) and the fact that it includes PCs,NPCs and monsters doesn't mean that it is limited to that and thus excludes all else.In fact given the definition an imaginative creature is a creature nonetheless.So no restriction here.
If a player draws a fool card from the deck of many things (one of the level losing ways still in the system) and lose 10000xp which would conclude in him dropping a level while he has 3 levels of cleric would you consider that he loses the 1st and 2nd level of cleric but he keeps the 3rd?I don't think so.It's because levels drop and rise linearly.
So when you create an illusory duplicate of something you are not limited in the linear reduction of levels?So if a creature gains 6 HD and then the assassin prestige class the duplicate could end up as 3HD/3assassin or worse yet would a dragon have only the bonuses and spell from the advanced age categories and not the lower?Even in a mixed situation of acquisition of HD and levels such as the ones noted in your post,the drop must be linear else crazy things like that can occur.
At last I don't copy a creature that gained it's levels before full maturing.I copy an effrity that first took 8 HD and then 18 levels.
So in order to stop a wish factory without assertion to knowledge one should:
1)Accept that simulacrums of creatures mysteriously lose their abilities even the non level-based ones.
2)Accept that the simulacrum can only duplicate existing creatures instead of any creature as noted in the spell (imaginary friends and products of madness fit the definition of the creature in the core just fine).
3)Accept that there isn't,wasn't and will never be any advanced creature of any race that has wish as a spell like ability.
4)Accept that there isn't wasn't and will never be any creature with the wish as spell like ability that gained levels after it's HD at least equal to them.
And
5)That creating a duplicate of a creature can sometimes lead to specimens of creatures that have only the high level abilities and not the low level abilities as the reduction of levels and HD isn't necessarily linear.
The definition given in the core includes wondrous creatures,imaginative and dead creatures,products of madness and imaginary friends as everything plays an active role in a story or world.The definition clarifies that it includes PCs,NPCs and monsters but the doesn't limit itself to that.So no restriction here the definition includes them and the spell lets you copy them all.
The whole situation arose when someone took the liberty to consider that the creatures duplicated could lose even non level/HD-dependent abilities which I do not believe to be the case otherwise a fire elemental can lose its fire subtype a fish can drown and other such hilarious examples.As written it means that the creature has half the corresponding special abilities for its HD/lvls,thus abilities that are affected by them.
There are situations where a player can lose levels in 3.75 and one of them is drawing the fool card from the deck of many things.Would you have a character lose a level in a nonlinear fashion in a situation like this (like a cleric losing his first level or a dragon losing his's lower caster levels from HDs and not the higher)?
Secondly if not when losing a level,when creating a duplicate of a creature with HD would you then consider a nonlinear fashion of reducing the creature's HD?Things like the dragon with the 19th level of sorcerer and not the 10th become possible this way.Remember if the one thing can be done so can the other.
It is like asking if you can be a 20th level cleric without first being a 19th.It is not mentioned but it creates problems if done otherwise
Finally I copy a efritty that took its 18 levels after its HD.As simple as that.If I don't get the wishes screw them I have dragons with 9th level spells (and not 5th and lower) at my disposal and I am 200th level in at least one class from lvl1.
|
|
IMO the problems with `simulacrum` stem from the spell description not being detailed enough, rather than it necessarily being broken per se; even without detailed mechanics it's not really clear what the spell should qualitatively be capable of -- it suprised me back in 3.5 when `polymorph` got overhauled but `simulacrum` was ignored; at the very least it feels like it needs a page-worth of examples.
Consider if one year RPG Superstar had a "design a new spell" round and `simulacrum` were submitted. What would Clark/SKR/James/whoever make of it? It would likely be torn to shreds. And this is a spell that's made it more-or-less intact through several versions of the game.
Guidelines for usage in a Paizo setting can probably reasonably be gleaned from (as others have mentioned) EttRoG and Headless.
Personally (as others have said) I'd add back in a pound-of-flesh requirement (not just a piece of the target, but more than just a strand of hair or a toenail clipping) and limit max HD to CL.
It's also important to note that the description talks about the simulacrum being under its creator's "absolute command" -- there's not necessarily any loyalty, it just has to follow your orders. The spell dosn't talk about personality, initiative, free-will or anything else, so if we assume that the simulacrum retains it's personality, free-will (except with regards to following the commands of its creator) and a desire for self preservation then except for following its creators commands it's going to behave more-or-less as the original would under given circumstances.
The simulacrum will look at it's circumstances, resources & abilities and determine how best it can survive and achieve its own goals (as tempered by the creator's commands).
So, even stripped of half their levels, just how well would the original Iggwilv or Mordenkainen react to being under somebody else's "absolute command"? Even at half power notIggwilv or notMordenkainen is going to a serious potential threat to their creator -- who's going to have to being laying on `charms` and `dominates` thick and fast (notMordenkainen: "a DC30 will save, how quaint..."), and who'll have to watch their every utterance with the care of the strictest wish-lawyer to avoid saying something that notIggwilv can interpret as letting her feed them to a passing qipploth lord.
So if you want pet simulacrum of an epic level wizard then it'll be a little like keeping bound demons or managing computer security -- you have to get it right *every* time, you only need to mess up once for things to start going very wrong very quickly.
Simulacra work best when they're of beings naturally loyal to you, ideally of yourself. But so long as they retain their personality & desire for self preservation you still need to look beyond just obedience to actual loyalty.
The definition given in the core includes wondrous creatures,imaginative and dead creatures,products of madness and imaginary friends as everything plays an active role in a story or world.
No, they don't. A PC plays an active role in the world, things that the PC imagines do not. You are being ridiculous.
The whole situation arose when someone took the liberty to consider that the creatures duplicated could lose even non level/HD-dependent abilities
Yes, because the spell specifically says "appropriate", without qualification. The word "appropriate" is a nice big sign saying "GM's discretion here."
which I do not believe to be the case otherwise a fire elemental can lose its fire subtype a fish can drown and other such hilarious examples.
If and only if the GM decides such a removal is appropriate. If you have a GM who would consider stripping the ability to breathe underwater from a simulacrum of a fish appropriate, you have a much, much bigger problem than the simulacrum spell.
There are situations where a player can lose levels in 3.75 and one of them is drawing the fool card from the deck of many things.
By the PRD, The Fool means "Lose 10,000 experience points and you must draw again." There is no mention of level loss.
Would you have a character lose a level in a nonlinear fashion in a situation like this (like a cleric losing his first level or a dragon losing his's lower caster levels from HDs and not the higher)?
First, simulacrum is not a case of level loss, so discussion of level loss is basically irrelevant to this discussion. Neither the character nor the simulacrum loses any levels; the simulacrum is merely created with half the levels of the character.
Second, if there was some situation where level loss actually happened (which it does not anywhere in the Pathfinder rules), I would not necessarily take off levels in the order earned. I might very well reduce a Fighter 10/Ranger 10 who suffered two lost levels to a Fighter 9/Ranger 9, even if he earned all ten levels as a fighter before gaining any levels as a ranger.
Secondly if not when losing a level,when creating a duplicate of a creature with HD would you then consider a nonlinear fashion of reducing the creature's HD?Things like the dragon with the 19th level of sorcerer and not the 10th become possible this way.Remember if the one thing can be done so can the other.
You are failing to read the description of the simulacrum spell. It says, and I quote, "(and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD)". Whether you "remove" the first ten levels or the last ten levels of a 20th level character when creating a simulacrum, the result is a character with ten levels, and the appropriate abilities are those of character of that (i.e., 10th) level.
We don't need any reference to abstract principles or rules that used to exist in previous versions of the game to avoid abuse, because the text of the simulacrum spell specifically prevents such abuse.
Finally I copy a efritty that took its 18 levels after its HD.
Okay. Assuming such a creature actually existed in my game world, you now have an efreeti with 5 levels of Outsider and 9 levels of something else, exactly like the spell is supposed to deliver. And?
I have dragons with 9th level spells (and not 5th and lower) at my disposal
Even if simulacrum was not insulated from this ridiculous result by its own text, there is nothing in the rules that gives the caster the ability to choose the levels, which means we would be in an area of GM discretion. And if the GM is such that he would consider the result you suggest a reasonable interpretation of the spell, you have a much, much bigger problem than the spell.
|
|
Consider if one year RPG Superstar had a "design a new spell" round and `simulacrum` were submitted. What would Clark/SKR/James/whoever make of it? It would likely be torn to shreds. And this is a spell that's made it more-or-less intact through several versions of the game.
Simulacrum is an *awesome* GM tool. Want to throw a critter of legend at a party that isn't quite ready for prime time? Use a half-strength Sim that looks and acts as scary as the real thing, but melts away into snow and ice after it is defeated.
But it uses it's own rules, instead of the completely different rules for Shadow Monsters, which is, more or less, a temporary version of the same effect (quasi-real duplicate of monster), and those rules are more GM guidelines than anything a player can work with.
It's hardly the only case where backwards-compatibility caused an item to be upgraded to Pathfinder that the design team probably would have otherwise not included in the game (or changed radically, if they did). It's the kind of thing Mike Mearls called a 'proud nail' in his online design article, and led to some of the sweeping changes in the new edition of D&D, to eliminate some of the clunkier legacy stuff, rather than try to make it work in a coherent manner. As already noted, fixing the spell to work as written requires re-writing the monster advancement rules, or come up with a reverse 'Advancement' line in the monster write-ups that included reduced HD versions of the listed creatures, and not just 'advanced' versions, as well as weeding out monster abilities that would be ridiculous, even at 'half-strength,' to place in the hands of players, like Create Spawn or Grant Wish. ('Cause the ability to generate an infinite number of half-strength Wights and Vampires isn't a whole lot easier on the game setting than the ability to create infinite full-strength Wights and Vampires. It's still the end of the world.)