| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The spell have range 0 and as a component it needs a model of the target.
That seem to imply that you need the one you want copy present duing the 12 houre casting time.
That may make the level 13 wizard makes snowman pit fiend a bit impractical.
Or am i reading this all wrong?
Edit: and sorry for asking somthing that have most likely been asked before, but i cudent find any thing about it with the search function.
But range 0 seems to indicate the range to the target. That is true with any other spell i think.
Simulacrum is one of those spells that causes lots of discussions and doesn't seem to quite work the way you think it should.
Firstly, the Components refer to the "target", but it's not a targeted spell.
Range 0 just means that you must be in the same square as the effect and components (that sculpture) for the entire casting time. 12 hours basically hugging an ice statue doesn't sound like fun to me.
As CWheezy says, you don't need the "duplicated creature" (hereafter referred to as the "subject") present - you just need the statue of the subject (and a heck of a lot of rubies).
The thing that causes problems is the "special abilities appropriate to a creature with those HD or levels". Should a 10HD Pit Fiend still be able to cast Wish once per year? I'd say no, in the same way that a 10th level wizard can't prepare a Wish, but YMMV.
At the end of the day, Simulacrum is one of the "GM adjudication required" spells, on a par with Wish and Limited Wish, when used to duplicate creatures with lots of special abilities. The question to ask (as a GM), is almost always going to be "why that particular creature, and not the king, or the caster himself, or a different creature with different abilities?" And if the answer is "to get access to game-altering ability X", then you need to get pretty picky about what you allow the simulacrum to do.
But if the target is not the statue but the subject, and that seem to be the case since the staute is of the target, then it(the subject) needs to be present.
If this is the correct ruling it will solve alot of the problems with the spell, yes?
Pehaps we can FAQ it?
Edit: putting the subject:)
The 3.5 version was basically the same: Simulacrum
The big difference being that it's even more clear that you don't need the subject present. Again, it is NOT a targeted spell. Yes, that would fix some of the problems, but makes it harder to use as a plot device (such as the evil grand vizier using a simulacrum of the king to further his goals).
Edit: I started the use of the term "subject", I really should stick with it.
the evil grand Vizier can have the king drugged and do the magic when he is out cold. that wont be a problem. But every wizard above level 13 wont have a pet king to drive away the tax collectors :)
And it is true about the 3,5 version but pathfinder have solved other problems with that game.
Edit: spelling and trying to fit in the word Subject.
The spell's description is faulty, since it indeed specifies a range but not a target. Most likely it's intended to be similar to Fabricate, where the target is the Material Component.
Still: FAQ'd.
The spell's description is faulty, since it indeed specifies a range but not a target. Most likely it's intended to be similar to Fabricate, where the target is the Material Component.
Still: FAQ'd.
Thanks :)
There is no target (as in the mechanical term). You just cast the spell. The use of "target" in the material components section is unfortunate, but it doesn't get around the fact that there isn't a target specified for the spell--it isn't "Target: creature" or even "Target: you". So have fun making simulacra of people on different freaking planes, provided you know enough to make the ice sculpture.
There are a lot of interesting things wrong (or oh so very right) with this spell.
Yes, looking at the 3e version (not strictly sure if it changed between 3.0 and 3.5 without digging out old books) the spell description used to say you needed a part of the original creature. So a lock of hair, toe nail, etc., would be enough.
....
But other things chances between 3,5 and PF so the "it was Line this in 3,5"8 argument is not rock solid. And the omission of the taget line in the spell, may as well be a mistanke as the mentioning of it the component line.
I'm pretty sure that the removal of the "part of the original creature" requirement was intentional. The spell would be far more limited with that requirement.
I'm pretty sure that the removal of the "part of the original creature" requirement was intentional. The spell would be far more limited with that requirement.
Or the target thing was put is as a balancing factor, on what is a flavorful but often abused spell?
Edit :spelling
The spell would still be heavily abusable. Might as well make it more fun as well.
Perhaps you should reference this thread where James Jacobs chimed in regarding the working of Simulacrum.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ljov?Simulacrum
And no where does it say that you have to have actually seen the creature or any of its powers. So technically, you could build and army of Tarrasque
I see that DonDuckie made my point back then, i will rule like he does, thanks for the referance :)