Looks like Peter won this thread to me.
Also, Pathfinder Rules includes "The Most Important Rule," on CRB pg. 9.
The most important rule however is subjective and vary from group so I think that like Custom Item creation and Spell Research we should ignore for RAW discussions no? After all, some GMs make Fighters cut their own heads off on a critical failure, but I don't think its practical to account for such things when discussing how strong a Fighter is.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The most important rule however is subjective and vary from group so I think that like Custom Item creation and Spell Research we should ignore for RAW discussions no?
If Custom Item and Spells are omitted from RAW discussions, then Custom Monsters logically should be too. And since it's up to the DM to decide what exactly you get (and don't get) from a 1/2 HD Simulacrum, that is a custom monster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It isn't custom. It just has 1/2 HD with the "appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD". That doesn't call for GM adjudication as there are rules to determine what the appropriate feats, skill ranks and special abilities are. The simulacrum will have 1/2 HD, which will reduce its Saves/BAB/Skill points, which may effect its ability DCs and other features dependent on HD, such as class abilities. You keep everything else. Just like a 22 HD Efreeti with class levels has the same CL 11 Wish 3/day that a regular 10 HD Efreeti will have, which is the same CL 11 Wish 3/day that 5 HD Efreeti will have.
So there's no custom monster here, just one appropriately adjusted as the spell requires.
Actually it has been stated by one of the designers that a 1/2 HD creature shouldn't have all the same special abilities as a full hit dice creature. Ergo, it requires DM adjucation. If you don't like it, take it up with the designers.It isn't custom. It just has 1/2 HD with the "appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD". That doesn't call for GM adjudication as there are rules to determine what the appropriate feats, skill ranks and special abilities are. The simulacrum will have 1/2 HD, which will reduce its Saves/BAB/Skill points, which may effect its ability DCs and other features dependent on HD, such as class abilities. You keep everything else. Just like a 22 HD Efreeti with class levels has the same CL 11 Wish 3/day that a regular 10 HD Efreeti will have, which is the same CL 11 Wish 3/day that 5 HD Efreeti will have.
So there's no custom monster here, just one appropriately adjusted as the spell requires.
Or if they don't like it they could fix it with errata/FAQ it, which would help balance the game, but until then I think we should talk about the rules. Because as a descendent of 3.5 Pathfinder has scientific monster building and under the way the monster rules are written a 5 HD Efreeti should have the same SLA's as a 10 HD one.
Um.... I mentioned that Pathfinder like 3.5 does its monster design scientifically. Unlike 2nd Edition a monster Hit points is directly tied to its Hit dice in pathfinder, as is its BAB, Saves, Skills and Feats. This means that a monster cannot have 1 HD and 20 BAB, it would require at least a 20 HD creature to achieve that. There are things in Pathfinder that are tied to a monsters hit die and rules for advancing them. Unless otherwise mentioned on monster, SLA's are not a trait that is tied to HD, unlike BAB or skills. In fact, the bestiary actually has rules on how to increase (or decrease) a monsters HD. Oddly enough it says nothing about adding or removing SLAs. Which is why a level 20 Drow has the same SLAs at the same Caster level as a level 1 Drow, and a 22 HD Efreeti with class leves has the same SLAs as a 10HD Efreeti without them, because SLAs are not gained or lost, or increase or decrease in Caster level as part of gaining or losing Hit Die.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And now Nethys has planetars. I wonder when the TN god of magic above all got a Good Aligned planetar as a servant, and furthermore lets such stay messing around with a level 20 wizard?
Furthermore, simulacarum have alignments, which means you are employing Evil creatures, MAKING evil creatures, your absolute control of them notwithstanding. You are employing the tools of evil to meet your ends, good or not.
Which is textbook Neutrality, ends justify the means.
I gotta love how you are putting all those thoughts into the planetar's head. Why, he can shuck all the immortal duties he was made to uphold, leading armies of celestials and upholding profound Good, to be your shield man.
yeah. Not. Just not seeing it.
and the above on SLA's is completely correct. There's nothing to support a 5HD simulacarum efreet having access to the most powerful SLA's of the race. Which means reasonable DM adjudication, which means, um, no.
And am I incorrect that a Pathfinder + Clear Stone completely blocks Geas, along with all the other mind control stuff?
==Aelryinth
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even supernatural abilities can be dependent on HD. For example, a Red Dragon doesn't gain Fire Aura until it reaches 17 HD.
Again, I'm not saying you're wrong to give a 1/2 HD contract devil his wish ability, but that is still a GM adjudication you've just made. You think Contract Devils regardless of HD should have that ability - another DM can disagree. There is no RAW answer to that question; it comes down to each table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And now Nethys has planetars. I wonder when the TN god of magic above all got a Good Aligned planetar as a servant, and furthermore lets such stay messing around with a level 20 wizard?
Furthermore, simulacarum have alignments, which means you are employing Evil creatures, MAKING evil creatures, your absolute control of them notwithstanding. You are employing the tools of evil to meet your ends, good or not.
Which is textbook Neutrality, ends justify the means.
I gotta love how you are putting all those thoughts into the planetar's head. Why, he can shuck all the immortal duties he was made to uphold, leading armies of celestials and upholding profound Good, to be your shield man.
yeah. Not. Just not seeing it.
and the above on SLA's is completely correct. There's nothing to support a 5HD simulacarum efreet having access to the most powerful SLA's of the race. Which means reasonable DM adjudication, which means, um, no.
And am I incorrect that a Pathfinder + Clear Stone completely blocks Geas, along with all the other mind control stuff?
==Aelryinth
Um... you mean other than the rules of the game, which cover how to increase or decrease a monster HD, which if you would read shows that SLAs aren't linked to HD. Since you and Psyren can't be bothered to read it I guess I'll have to quote it:
The following rules allow you to adjust monsters, increasing (or even decreasing) their statistics and abilities while still creating a balanced and fun encounter.
Adding racial Hit Dice to a monster is a similar process to building a monster from scratch. As additional Hit Dice are added, other abilities increase in power as well. Additional Hit Dice usually results in better attack bonuses, saves, hit points, and skills, as well as more feats. It can also include additional spellcasting capability and other powers.
So HD is tied to BAB, saves, hit points and skills, as well as determining the feats a creature receives. It sometimes can also include spellcasting and powers, which accounts for monsters that gain increased abilities and powers that are tied to HD.
Since we know what features are tied to HD now (notably not SLAs, Ex, or Su abilities), we can create an appropriate 5 HD Efreeti, which has no spellcasting or powers based on HD and so only has reduced BAB, saves, hit points and skills, as well as a reduced number of feats.
This is in no way GM adjudication and the rules as stated above do in fact support 5HD Efreeti having Wish since as an SLA it is not tied to HD.
Edit: And you will note Psyren that the Red Dragon is specifically called out as gaining it at 17 HD (they even get a table to indicate when abilities are gained), unlike Efreeti's Wish SLA.
Edit 2: You realize Protection from X got nerfed in Pathfinder right Aelryinth? So yes you are incorrect. Protection from Evil will not help you one bit against a NG caster like the OP (and no Protection from X can help you against a True Neutral caster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They have none which is precisely my point. Thus, these creatures do not fall under the *can* part of the rules for spellcasting and powers and thus have Wish regardless of Hit Dice.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They have none which is precisely my point. Thus, these creatures do not fall under the *can* part of the rules for spellcasting and powers and thus have Wish regardless of Hit Dice.
Exactly, they don't. So you deciding what they get is a GM adjudication, however reasonable or supportable you have made it to yourself, unless it is explicitly stated it is not RAW.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The game is very "playable" at high levels. What you are saying is that it is not playable to your satisfaction. In other words, to your tastes.
That's a completely different animal.
Agreed.
And now Nethys has planetars. I wonder when the TN god of magic above all got a Good Aligned planetar as a servant, and furthermore lets such stay messing around with a level 20 wizard?
Well, Nethys has an archon as a divine servant, so I don't see why not.
Drow explicitly gain all their SLAs at 1st-level though. We have no such stats for a 1 HD Efreet. So any attempt to give them everything regardless of HD is a GM adjudication.
Do they? Or do they simply have it, say, regardless of hit dice?
EDIT: one other reason this is an important distinction comes from another use of Simulacrum - when making a Simulacrum of a first level (one hit dice) drow or other similar creature. What then? Do they lose their drow traits? Does it just not work? What about their other abilities? Why only spell-likes? And so on.
They have none which is precisely my point. Thus, these creatures do not fall under the *can* part of the rules for spellcasting and powers and thus have Wish regardless of Hit Dice.Exactly, they don't. So you deciding what they get is a GM adjudication, however reasonable or supportable you have made it to yourself, unless it is explicitly stated it is not RAW.
This is like saying that it's GM adjudication that natural 20s are critical hits. Yes, you're right, it is, technically, GM fiat due to the nature of the GM position. But by RAW a natural 20 is a critical hit.
The main difference is that your argument is based on a lack of rules or evidence. Until rules come out to support your claim, it's a false premise to presume that another interpretation isn't RAW. And while a Dev opinion is a valid thing to base a decision around, it's not inherent.
I mean, we also don't have rules for urination. Is it GM fiat, then, that since he doesn't have a toilet he can't urinate four to seven times per day? Or maybe if he does (since there's not toilet) disease is created because of it. I mean, you know, it's logical that such a thing would happen, and disease does exist in the Pathfinder world, as does food and drink. Since he's human, it would make sense, even, since we know humans have to eliminate waste! The lack of rules means that it's up to GM arbitration. There's nothing against RAW in this, either!
But no one would accept this as a RAW argument. It's exceedingly peculiar that only - only - when people bring up things like Simulacrum does the argument, "It doesn't exist, thus it's GM fiat!" come up.
Effectively: yes, Simulacrum works this way by RAW, because the rules that are in place support this interpretation, though it's reasonable to come to a different conclusion. Both interpretations of RAW are fully accurate, though one (the one that permits more abuses) is more faithful to the collective body of RAW than the other.
Again: I don't ever recommend someone try this stuff in a game, unless your group (especially your GM) specifically goes for that kind of thing.
Simulacrum is a problematic spell by RAW, and yes, to keep balance, it does require GM adjudication. That doesn't mean this wouldn't work, is a wrong interpretation, or "requires GM fiat" any more than every other rule in the game.
In a game lacking a GM, this would be a reasonable outcome - as reasonable as presuming natural 20s threaten critical hits - because that's the only thing the rules actually write about.
|
|
Do they? Or do they simply have it, say, regardless of hit dice?
"Drow are defined by their class levels—they do not possess racial Hit Dice. All drow have the following racial traits."
Go on, find me that statement for Efreet and Contract Devils. I'll wait.
This is like saying that it's GM adjudication that natural 20s are critical hits.
These are not even remotely similar.
You missed the point of the fighter example :-)Well I stated earlier that most of your points involve other wizards.
Also, a kingdom being thankful isn't isolated to fighters, I think many kingdoms would welcome the help of a wizard, be it solving crimes with spells, solving food shortages with spells, labour issues with spells, etc.
I feel like if your answer is "fighters are equal to wizards if the fighter also has wizard friends", then maybe you should rethink your premise.
Although, if you feel like I haven't summarized your point correctly, I would like you to state it more clearly!
EDIT: Oh, I am seeing now that you ban simulacrum and create demiplane in your games. I don't know about demiplane, it seems pretty fun, but yes banning simulacrum is a correct choice. The problem is that your game is no longer standard, since my wizard is made with Pathfinder rules, and your game is played with Pathfinder + Some guy's rules
Nope, you misunderstood again :-)
I was aiming at WBL, that you do not adhere to it. The fighter was just an example how you can have infinite of everything with every class because you can just explain everything away.
If this is supposed to be a big kind of "look, wizards are sooo cool (drool)" thread and you don't actually want feedback about thr build, there is nothing intetesting in it for me and I have misunderstood what you want.
We do not ban simulacrums or demiplanes. But all the value that these are worth counts against your WBL, blood money figures into that. If you don't care about that, a rogue, a paladin, a druid, a cavalier or any other class could just as well create a background story that explains why he can have everything you have written plus more.
And that is why this wizard build is neither standard nor creative to me :-)
Do they? Or do they simply have it, say, regardless of hit dice?"Drow are defined by their class levels—they do not possess racial Hit Dice. All drow have the following racial traits."
Go on, find me that statement for Efreet and Contract Devils. I'll wait.
Again, using a lack of ruling to interpret a rule isn't a valid way of going about it.
But taking what you say, there, then, what happens when you make a simulacrum of a 1HD drow, again? By the spell, it would seem possible.
Are you saying that's impossible? (This sounds like a valid reading to me, but not the only valid reading - just the one supported by the preponderance of the body of RAW.)
In 3.X there were, as I recall, a few partial-hit-dice creatures, but really briefly looking at d20pfsrd.com, I couldn't find any.
So, let's make a simulacrum of a 1HD commoner drow. What do you get?
Let me ask a similar question, then. If drow are "defined" by their class levels, could you take magic items, feats, favored enemies or similar such things that differentiate between classes of drow? A "drow fighter bane sword", for example?
Or what about beings like Ezren. He became a wizard when he was an older man. He starts out play as a first level wizard. What was he before that? (I have my own answer, but I'm curious for yours.)
I'm genuinely curious how you would read such rules and why.
Also, let's look at your dragon example:
- Dragons have a chart. This is an example of "specific". (Similarly, barbarians, bards, clerics, fighters, etc. of certain levels (hit dice) have certain benefits. These are also examples of "specific".)
- The rule is that, "Specific Trumps General."
- There are charts for "General", which don't include specific abilities such as a dragon's HD-based powers or an ifreet's non-hit dice based ones.
Thus claiming that due to the lack of chart (or the lack of quote) that you must go by the specific example is going against the majority of the body of RAW.
We have charts for what increasing and decreasing hit dice does in general (the general rule).
We have charts that indicate in certain specific instances (the specific rule) that, based on HD, creatures gain certain abilities.
Thus, making simulacra of an ifreeti noble won't (in all likelihood) gain your the noble abilities, as those are based on hit dice.
But making a simulacra of the non-noble creatures will get you the abilities of the non-noble creature because they're not defined by their hit dice.
So, you know, you're right. They're not defined by their class hit dice. Or hit dice at all. At least based on a really quick search of the d20pfsrd. Because there is no rule stating they are.
Creature types and subtypes have rules that they follow.
So, let's see.
Efreeti and Contract Devil. Nope, nothing there about them being defined by hit dice (except, of course, for the Malik).
There's nothing about that in genies or devil subtypes, or outsiders in general.
Heck, Efreeti have 10 hit dice, a caster level of eleven, and a CR of 8. Malik's have 13 hit dice, a caster level of 15, and a CR of 10. There is no mathmatical (chart-based) correlation between their caster level, their CR, or their hit dice.
Now, as has been pointed out with djinn, it's worth noting that they can grant three wishes when they hit 10 hit dice, but it's not clear if the Vizier can grant more than three wishes ever, which certainly messes with the idea that it's the 10 hit dice that are the magic number. Looking at the 12 hit dice (presumably, then, "more powerful") marid can grant only one per year. The shaitan only gain the ability to grant three per day at 18 hit dice. No correlation there, at all. Janni I didn't even link because they never achieve that ability.
Could you "read" that 10 hit dice is somehow the "floor" for such things? Yeah. But it's not RAW. It may (or may not) be RAI, but it's definitely not RAW.
These are not even remotely similar.
This is like saying that it's GM adjudication that natural 20s are critical hits.
Sure, okay. And why not?
As to the "Why?" (before that comes up), it's simple: GMs use their own fiat. That seems to be the thrust of your argument. And it's even a true one!
In which case, however, there is no difference between a GM claiming that a written rule is the same as RAW or is different from RAW as there is in a GM claiming that Simulacrum works in a way that RAW doesn't state.
I'll admit that it's not a strong example. But it does fit, from what I'm understanding based on your posts.
Also, I note you sidestepped the issue of bodily waste. That would certainly be more similar. There are no charts or rules for that, either, yet humans require such things. So... should he be penalized for something that isn't covered by the rules?
|
|
Again, using a lack of ruling to interpret a rule isn't a valid way of going about it.
But I'm not the one interpreting - you guys are. All I'm saying is that it needs adjudication - you two are disagreeing, then going on to adjudicate because there is no RAW there. It's hypocritical.
Could you "read" that 10 hit dice is somehow the "floor" for such things? Yeah. But it's not RAW. It may (or may not) be RAI, but it's definitely not RAW.
We are 1000% in agreement on this point.
Sure, okay. And why not?
Because there's an explicit rule that states that natural 20s are critical hits. No adjudication needed.
Also, I note you sidestepped the issue of bodily waste. That would certainly be more similar. There are no charts or rules for that, either, yet humans require such things. So... should he be penalized for something that isn't covered by the rules?
That sounds like a GM adjudication (there's that term again) to me.
So, agreement stuff out of the way first:
We are 1000% in agreement on this point.
Could you "read" that 10 hit dice is somehow the "floor" for such things? Yeah. But it's not RAW. It may (or may not) be RAI, but it's definitely not RAW.Sweet. :)
Now to disagreement:
But I'm not the one interpreting - you guys are. All I'm saying is that it needs adjudication - you two are disagreeing, then going on to adjudicate because there is no RAW there. It's hypocritical.
Again, using a lack of ruling to interpret a rule isn't a valid way of going about it.No. I'm saying that - in a vacuum - it functions as the OP stated it does.
You see that? That's not making a ruling. That's accepting that the game functions the way the game says it does.
I'll over this more in just a moment.
Sure, okay. And why not?Because there's an explicit rule that states that natural 20s are critical hits. No adjudication needed.This is wrong. There is adjudication needed. That's the nature of being a GM. If there is a GM, then there is adjudication.
Presuming a specific adjudication is what we're saying is "off" about your point.
1) It is entirely acceptable that a GM uses fiat to interpret the wording of the rules in the way that you say the rules work.
2) It is entirely acceptable that a GM uses fiat to interpret the wording of the rules in the way that the OP says they work.
3) The preponderance of RAW tends to agree with the OP's interpretation. This does not invalidate "1)", but rather means that, in a void - lacking a specific GM that chooses "1)" - "2)" is going to be the default presumption.Also, I note you sidestepped the issue of bodily waste. That would certainly be more similar. There are no charts or rules for that, either, yet humans require such things. So... should he be penalized for something that isn't covered by the rules?That sounds like a GM adjudication (there's that term again) to me.Okay, cool. So we are in agreement. When the rules don't say anything, and the GM does, that's applying rule 0 and stepping outside of RAW. Yes?
Here's the thing. There is no chart. Thus we default to RAW. In RAW, when there is no chart, there is no direct correlation. There can be inference, but that's not an actual rule.
The rules have certain tendencies. Following those tendencies is what the OP did. In a vacuum, it is presumed that the tendencies hold sway.
That is what we're arguing about. By saying, "It needs a fiat." (or adjudication, or whatever), you are implying that the thread's OP is non-functional according to the rules. This is wrong - it is perfectly functional according to the rules (relative to Simulacrum), but not perfectly functional according to all readings of the rules - only those readings that follow the tendencies of the majority of them.
In other words, it's not that you have a particular reading. But your reading requires an active interpretation, whereas the others require a passive interpretation.
See the disagreement?
I'm not saying "You're wrong." in your interpretation. I'm saying that citing the OP's interpretation is "wrong" is what is, in fact, wrong.
I'm pretty sure that Anzyr is saying, too.
I can see your point. I'm trying to clarify to all parties. On a forum like this, it's entirely acceptable to run rulings that have multiple interpretations in the interpretation that follows the majority of RAW.
He was off on the planar traits. Not so much on the simulacra. A given GM could make him wrong, but that's applying an active fiat, instead of a passive one.
(Incidentally, going by the Spirit instead of the Letter is one of the reasons that Lawful Good is better than Lawful Neutral. But unfortunately, due to the nature of Law - or in this case RAW - it's not justifiable to ignore the tendencies of the Letter either.)
Yup, that covers what I was trying get at with the rule quotes and all. Basically, inferring that Efreeti not having a chart of SLA's like the specific case of Red Dragon somehow means you cannot determine what a half HD version would look like is an odd approach, since the rules cover what is tied to HD in general cases and we can follow those rules to arrive at a 5 HD Efreeti that has less BAB, hit points, skills and save, but also has Wish as a SLA 3/day at Caster Level 11.
And really the rules of the game are complex enough that it was a good idea for the OP to post this so it can be further refined. I already covered the issue with the Timeless trait and suggested the Double Time Flowing Time trait instead. I'm slightly disappointed that thus far my post stands alone in making suggestions to improve the build.
Basically how they work is that I sign a contract for wishes, and the contract is "You give me wishes and I give you nothing". Also, I tell them no messing around with the wishes, making them evil or whatever, good only (some people will get mad about this, but tbh the wishes are pretty unrelated).
This is the bit which tells me with certainty that this "build" is unworkable (at best). That's not a contract in any meaningful definition of the term, let alone when it's a devil powering the wishes.
Yup, that covers what I was trying get at with the rule quotes and all. Basically, inferring that Efreeti not having a chart of SLA's like the specific case of Red Dragon somehow means you cannot determine what a half HD version would look like is an odd approach, since the rules cover what is tied to HD in general cases and we can follow those rules to arrive at a 5 HD Efreeti that has less BAB, hit points, skills and save, but also has Wish as a SLA 3/day at Caster Level 11.
And really the rules of the game are complex enough that it was a good idea for the OP to post this so it can be further refined. I already covered the issue with the Timeless trait and suggested the Double Time Flowing Time trait instead. I'm slightly disappointed that thus far my post stands alone in making suggestions to improve the build.
Well, with me totally making a mess of the quote boxes, and all, you clearly can't count on me to do something... :)
(You also nabbed the suggestions I would have made before I did.)
Basically how they work is that I sign a contract for wishes, and the contract is "You give me wishes and I give you nothing". Also, I tell them no messing around with the wishes, making them evil or whatever, good only (some people will get mad about this, but tbh the wishes are pretty unrelated).
This is the bit which tells me with certainty that this "build" is unworkable (at best). That's not a contract in any meaningful definition of the term, let alone when it's a devil powering the wishes.
Ah, but the rub is that they're simulacra of a devil that are under the absolute power of their maker (the wizard, in this case). They will do what he wants in the spirit of what he wants because it's what they are.
While it's seemingly a worthless contract (for the devil), it has all the hallmarks of a legal obligation, just one that most mortal courts wouldn't enforce because, you know, it's generally considered a jerk move. But these aren't mortal courts - it's a magically binding statement of intent and execution. Heck, he could simply re-fluff it, "You give me wishes, and I give you the opportunity to grant them for me." and it would be even more valid: he's actually giving them something.
Heck, he can even tell them, "Hey guys, stop being evil." and they will. This wouldn't even negate their powers or creature type, as there's also precedent in the Pathfinderverse (Golarion specifically) for an inherently aligned creature* to lose one of the components of their alignment*, but still remain the creature they are*.
Thus, you can have a devil, say, who's no longer evil. That would bypass many of the "you're creating evil!" complaints neatly as well.
This is the sort of thing that's exceedingly unbalancing, but Wishes in Pathfinder have been nerfed enough that having large numbers of uses of them isn't as exceedingly powerful as it might seem on the surface. It's nice - really nice! - to have tons of eighth level spells, and all, but most of the biggest game-breaking stuff (other than gaining more wishes) has been nerfed (generating magical items, for instance). I mean, +5 in all stats is good too, don't get me wrong. :)
Mostly, it's the "casting spells for free" that's the breaker. And that's covered by Blood Money, when necessary.
There is some question as to whether or not you could actually generate "stuff" with Wishes via Fabricate - since you don't need the material component (as it's supplied by the wish), theoretically the Wish might generate what you need - generating free gold, for example, by "Fabricating" gold bars out of nothing. It's a little hazy for me to call, though.
My understanding (not necessarily RAW) is that Wealth By Level is meant to represent a character's *resources* at that level. All of them.
Therefore the value of what's available to them should be at that level. Even if they have some trick for getting free stuff.
Otherwise, if the king rewards me with 10,000 gold, why does that count toward my WBL? I got it "for free", right?
|
I'm trying to figure out how you would actually enforce WBL on a wizurd that made extensive use of Blood Money, or any of the other ways to get stuff for free. It's not really the GM's place to mandate how the party splits the loot. If the party splits the loot evenly, does the GM lower EVERYONE'S WBL to account for the wizurd "making too much money" ?
If they are already "too rich", and they try to cast Blood Money, does it automatically fail because reasons?
I'm pretty sure my third post actually copied and pasted the applicable rules for simulacrum, which explicitly state that they have special abilities appropriate for their (lower) hit dice. That's an overt call for GM adjudication built into the spell itself. There isn't any ambiguity in it, and if there was it is put to bed by designers explicitly stating that it requires adjudication.
In any case, I've not seen any new arguments made in defense of anything said here, and CWheezy has ignored not only designer responses to him, but also long posts that break down on a point by point level the problems which his entire premise. So... I'm pretty much done.
This entire thread doesn't serve much purpose if the OP is going to stick his fingers in his ears and declare that his way is the right way regardless of any evidence to the contrary.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
True there is no ambiguity, in that we can determine what an appropriate 5 HD Efreeti is by following the rules in the Bestiary, which gives a 5 HD Efreeti with reduced BAB, skills, saves and less feats, but also with Wish 3/day at Caster Level 11. There is no GM call to determine this, merely following the rules that are provided. Please cite actual rules Peter Stewart rather than claiming people are ignoring your points.
|
|
True there is no ambiguity, in that we can determine what an appropriate 5 HD Efreeti is by following the rules in the Bestiary, which gives a 5 HD Efreeti with reduced BAB, skills, saves and less feats, but also with Wish 3/day at Caster Level 11. There is no GM call to determine this, merely following the rules that are provided. Please cite actual rules Peter Stewart rather than claiming people are ignoring your points.
There are no rules in the Bestiary for 5 HD Efreeti. There aren't even rules for creating Efreeti.
You are implying a lot of things about the post I made that I find offensive, implying I am "rubbing grit in people's eyes" is of course an insult, as was the tone of your previous post.Implying that you are rubbing grit in people's eyes is not an insult, it's an accusation. The entire tone of the opening post here is offensive, and intentionally so. Trying to claim that you are entirely innocent is disingenuous at best. I've no doubt we could stand here calling each other offensive until a mod shows up to nuke us both from orbit (in fact I'd put even money that is exactly what will happen), but that doesn't change the fact that in terms of game rules, you are quite wrong. All snark aside, your entire premise here is built on foundations that are rotten. Let me break down why, step by step, in the most forthright way that I can.
Hi, I would like some citations for your claims, if you want, since I am just reading the rules.Designer responding to you by name on the topic of how simulacrums should be built. You had a designer tell you explicitly months ago that the spell requires GM oversight to work, that GMs should be building siulacrums, that they should not get every ability of the original creature, and that they should be scaled for their CR, hit dice, and adjusted caster level as appropriate.
You ignored him and instead chose to post your simulacrum army almost a month later. That's about as clear an example as can be had that you are simply out to stir up trouble and don't really care about getting any kind of response to your implied criticism of the system.
James Jacobs explicitly stating that blood money only works with standard action spells.
I mean, you are focused on just my army of simulacrum, and did not even worry about my free level...
You favorite your own posts?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You favorite your own posts?
Sometimes, to keep track of them. In this case it contains links to posts by JJ and another designer that debunk both simulacrum and blood money. Rather than have to dig them up again, I can simply look in my (very short) list of favorite posts next time this particular topic comes up.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I fail to see how wizards are so broken, when by core every other class can have a legal level 17 wizard companion.
Now of course the easy counter to my theory is, "Well what if your dm doesn't allow leadership"? First off I would like to note that such a counterpoint is highly ironic when it is presented by a demographic that consistently downplays and dismisses the contribution of GM fiat to the balance process.
However regardless of that amusing anecdote I would posit that said response is without value in the context of this discussion. For the purposes of the situation presented there are only two meaningful distinctions of GM that exists. The kind that would allow the game breaking, illegal(Con bonuses to hitpoints scale with hitdice) creation presented in the OP's example(Type A) and the type that would not allow it(Type B).
Type A is fine with unbalanced nonsense; which in and of itself is perfectly reasonable. They might have their own funky ideas to contribute and likely the rest of the group has similar tastes. Pretty much the furthest thing from my personal cup of tea, but the world wasn't built to be my oasis. I find it unlikely to the point of impossibility that a Type A GM would disallow leadership, while allowing the "Standard Level 20 Wizard".
A Type B GM(Please excuse me for my presumption, but I consider this represent the vast majority.) for balance purposes, setting consistency, consideration for other party members, simplicity of adjudication, or really just any reason doesn't allow, or at the very least presents some sort of rational obstacle to the unbridled accumulation of power that is a, "Standard Level 20 Wizard". A Type B GM may or may not allow Leadership, but such a consideration is inconsequential to my overall point.
It's either A no meaningful outside influence exists, so everyone gets to be crazy and it all works itself out. Nobody needs balance when the league isn't regulated. Or B there is some amount of external pressure outside the player's control that will reign in their ability to completely break the system.
There might be a meaningful argument towards class imbalance, but so severely over-exaggerating your position only weakens it.
Just my 2 coppers.
True there is no ambiguity, in that we can determine what an appropriate 5 HD Efreeti is by following the rules in the Bestiary, which gives a 5 HD Efreeti with reduced BAB, skills, saves and less feats, but also with Wish 3/day at Caster Level 11. There is no GM call to determine this, merely following the rules that are provided. Please cite actual rules Peter Stewart rather than claiming people are ignoring your points.
I've referred you to the spell itself, which calls for arbitration of what appropriate abilities are for a simulacrum. I've linked you to designers explicitly stating that the spell requires GM adjudication to determine what those appropriate abilities are. In that same post (or close to it) that same designer calls out spell-like abilities as just one example of abilities that explicitly should be toned down for lower hit dice.
I don't really know what else you are looking for out of me. Perhaps you'd care to clarify what would be sufficient evidence to convince you that the spell does not implicitly allow you to gain access to every powerful spell-like ability and other power of every monster in the bestiaries that I haven't provided?
Well I could say all my pit fiends get wish 1/year.
Wish is an appropriate ability for a monster with 10 hd, therefore a 10 hd pit fiend has wish.
Proof is that efreeti have wish and are 10 hd.
I don't know how a contract devil wouldn't have contracts, it is a pretty special ability they have.
If you were the GM you could indeed do so. That's not a player call, and if a GM is comfortable with that happening in his campaign then I don't see the issue. The spell is broad and open enough that it can fit into any number of campaigns depending on what the GM finds appropriate. If that is what you and your fellow players enjoy, more power to you. I fail to see how you enjoying yourself is a problem for everyone else.
If it isn't something you enjoy, then the GM (you or otherwise) can easily rule that it doesn't grant access to wish or similar powers and still fit neatly within the spell description. What is the issue here?
Maybe instead of relying on gm fiat for a spell, they could errata the spell? New errata: This spell concept is broken because pcs should not have access to monsters, therefore you can only make simulacrums of yourself with no spellcasting
First of all, GM Fiat is "game-altering decision is made by the GM without any explicit procedures". That is not at all what a GM ruling on simulacrum is. The expression you are looking for is 'GM Discretion' under which falls all world-building and decision that fit within the rules (e.g. how long it takes you to cross a lake, is there a doctor in this town, what faith does the most powerful priest in a town adhere to, what monster do you encounter in a given dungeon). The difference is that one is typically off the cuff and negative, while the other fits neatly within the rules and spirit of the game. Designing monsters - including those produced by simulacrum - falls only under fiat in the most bizarre interpretation.
Is it GM fiat when your GM creates an adventure instead of running a published one? Is it GM fiat when every monster you encounter isn't out of a monster manual? Is it GM fiat when your GM stats up NPCs? Is it GM fiat when he assigns treasure by any means but rolling on a chart?
Second, the concept isn't broken. It gives you access only to the abilities your GM deems appropriate in his game. It lets you make copies of yourself, allies, and enemies for the purpose of whatever plots you may have (the vast majority of them being completely legitimate). You are deliberately misinterpreting the 'appropriate abilities for its hit dice' clause and calling for errata. I just don't understand why.
Are you really demanding that a spell that causes no problems in the vast majority of tables, which has built in GM oversight, be nerfed out of existence because you think a player can choose to interpret it in the most broken way imaginable? What about in my game, where the party sorcerer uses it to keep doubles of himself in the town while he's off adventuring so he can keep promises he made to people in town regarding protection and aid? What about the party wizard who uses it to have a copy of herself supervise her shipyard while she's off adventuring? What about the evil court archmage who uses it to have copies of the PCs under his command commit crimes and otherwise discredit them as part of a plot to get them away from the king so he can take control? You are throwing an awful lot out with the wash water and insisting that everyone else follow suit. I don't understand why.
What is the end game of all this? What did simulacrum do to you? This isn't some broken rule ability like Antagonize that when run explicitly in keeping with its unambiguous wording could result in wizards attacking instead of casting spells, devotees to non-violence attacking without reason, or other similar problems. This is a relatively open ended spell that can produce damaging effects only when completely unchecked by the GM. So why the big crusade? Why waste your time with this entire thing?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. I'm saying that - in a vacuum - it functions as the OP stated it does.The problem is that Simulacrum itself says "hey DM, this thing has half HD, make a ruling here." So there is no vacuum.
Okay, let's look at what the spell says.
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 (and the appropriate hit points, 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. You must make a Disguise check when you cast the spell to determine how good the likeness is. A creature familiar with the original might detect the ruse with a successful Perception check (opposed by the caster's Disguise check) or a DC 20 Sense Motive check.
At all times, the simulacrum remains under your absolute command. No special telepathic link exists, so command must be exercised in some other manner. 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 snow and melts instantly into nothingness. A complex process requiring at least 24 hours, 100 gp per hit point, and a fully equipped magical laboratory can repair damage to a simulacrum.
Nope. Nothing about the GM has to do anything.
You can read it as saying such, and, let me reiterate, you are not wrong to do so. However, it is equally valid to not read such into it.
There are rules for what is tagged with HD. Rules. They are Written. That is why it's called Rules As Written. With the Written Rules, or "RAW", there are specific things that are tied to HD: those include base attack bonus, skill points, saves, and numbers of feats (and, in terms of classes gained, ability scores by level).
IN SPECIFIC INSTANCES (such as dealing with a Dragon, class features at certain levels, or whether or not a genie is a noble genie) the hit dice is relevant to other traits and qualities. These are the Rules As they are Written. The RAW. This is an application of the principal, "Specific Trumps General".
Thus, in those specific instances, the rules include other abilities. If Simulacra had limited itself to only base attack, saves, and so on, the other traits would be kept. Then we'd be (potentially, depending on how it's phrased) left with things like 5HD wizards with access to 5th level spells. Instead, however, it included the phrase, "and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD" which is all part of a paranthetical linking back to the phrase "it has only half of the real creature's levels or HD". This, then, means that it has those things which are based on the hit dice.
What is based on the hit dice?
In General:
- base attack bonus
- saves
- skills
- feats
- ability scores (if generated by hit dice other than base)
In Specific:
- class abilities (if any)
- special "tier" abilities based on hit dice (if any) [ex: Maliks, or Young Dragons]
And that's it. Claiming that the rules state otherwise is fallacious. As fallacious as claiming that the rules state that natural 20s don't threaten a critical, because "Rule 0".
In a void, where rule 0 isn't applied, natural 20s threaten critical hits. The things on the charts are what is applied.
Now. Reference a developer's opinion. Let's look at it again.
Relinked Stephen Radney-MacFarland's quote for relevance.
I would take that into account when making a simulacrum, and when you make it into a monster with half the HD, the GM gets to design it. Monster design is in the GM purview after all.
This is another balance point of the game. While not explicitly said in the rules, most people know it and take it for granted. We definitely design with these assumptions in mind.
He's saying that he would take it into account, that the rules don't explicitly say it, and they designed with assumptions.
Which means that a) it's his opinion, b) it's not in the rules, and c) they are unclear (to the point of not being present) in their creation thereof.
And what about James Jacobs? It's been said several times that, while he's extremely knowledgeable, he's not actually a rules designer, and has made mistakes from time to time, though he's inherently correct on the "Canon Golarion". Thus, on Golarion, you'd be limited to standard action spells, but if the rules don't say otherwise and there is no errata, there's nothing that follows that. He's giving his opinion. It is a weighted opinion. An important one. But it is, ultimately, an opinion.
You favorite your own posts?Sometimes, to keep track of them. In this case it contains links to posts by JJ and another designer that debunk both simulacrum and blood money. Rather than have to dig them up again, I can simply look in my (very short) list of favorite posts next time this particular topic comes up.
I do that too, on occasion, for exactly the same reasons. It seems legit to me. Of course I have a ton of favorites, so it's more difficult... :)
I don't really know what else you are looking for out of me. Perhaps you'd care to clarify what would be sufficient evidence to convince you that the spell does not implicitly allow you to gain access to every powerful spell-like ability and other power of every monster in the bestiaries that I haven't provided?
The problem is that you haven't provided. You've provided solid (and good-to-follow) suggestions and very specific readings, but you've not provided actual rules or errata.
Those are the two points from which your assertion is refuted.
Is it GM fiat when your GM creates an adventure instead of running a published one? Is it GM fiat when every monster you encounter isn't out of a monster manual? Is it GM fiat when your GM stats up NPCs? Is it GM fiat when he assigns treasure by any means but rolling on a chart?
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Do I get a prize for getting them all right? I love prizes! (And if I'm wrong, I'd love for you to show me. Give me a good quote, definition, and link! That'd be pretty sweet, as I'd learn something!)
I want to make something clear, here. I'm not against GM fiat at all or GM discretion or GM anything, really. I think it's a great thing. The problem comes in presuming a very specific kind of GM decision making.
Also, the errata suggested by CWeezy is, I'd say, quite disingenuous. I think a much easier errata would be to add the words, "... as determined by the GM" at the end of the "special abilities" phrase. Some, true, would take it out of context and thus allow the GM to determine the creature's base attack, saves, and all that nonsense regardless. But, you know. That happens. An even simpler way is to write the whole phrase something like:
"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 - as determined by the GM or according to class level - special abilities for a creature of that level or HD)."
BAM! Any problems are now resolved.
Why waste your time with this entire thing?
I dunno. Seemed like a fun thing to do on a Tuesday Morning. :)
Finally, MassivePauldrons: I've seen GMs that hold the kind of apparent double-standard you find difficult to believe. It exists, and generally does so due to unspoken rules of the Social Contract. "Type A" is really a broad, broad suite of Types ranging from "Type A.1" all the way to "Type A.999..." and everything in between. ("Type B" is similarly broad.)
EDIT 1&2: I would also like to say that I can see people being frustrated with the OP title assertion that all of this is "standard". I found it funny myself, but not frustrating (). It doesn't hold true at all tables, but the preponderance of it can hold true.
Also, as a point to counter this stuff, the Wizard who has this would likely soon meet the pit fiend, efreeti, the lich-wizard, and other similar creatures who also have this stuff, and have had much greater time to set everything up. It sure would be interesting to see what happens then.
You favorite your own posts?Sometimes, to keep track of them. In this case it contains links to posts by JJ and another designer that debunk both simulacrum and blood money. Rather than have to dig them up again, I can simply look in my (very short) list of favorite posts next time this particular topic comes up.
Ah, good idea.
There might be a meaningful argument towards class imbalance, but so severely over-exaggerating your position only weakens it.Unfortunately, most of your post is a false dichtomy, but I did enjoy the "everyone can have a wizard pet so they are not broken" part, it was quite funny. This last part though, it is something to mention.
Yes, this really is standard for a wizard. Many scrolls of timestop, a huge demiplane made of whatever, a ton of minions doing his bidding, always knowing when he is in trouble and being able to escape beforehand.
So, when I play like, a fighter, I know I can pick any feat, really and it wont mess things up in a game. I want there to be the same situation for wizards. I want to be able to play a wizard and look at his feats and discoveries, and instead of having to think "If I pick this spell and use it by RAW no one else will get to play as I solve all the world's issues", or "If I pick this spell I am going to have to do a bunch of OOC finagling to make sure the campaign doesn't break".
It would be nice to play a wizard and not have to worry about those things, kind of like if I play a fighter.
EDIT: I am still waiting for the people who are making WBL claims to extrapolate on their claim.
abusing spells in such a way is begging for a nerf
you literally cut down a huge portion of your wealth when you made all those simulacrums
those tomes and big 6 items also cut into your funds
this wizard is clearly violating the wealth by level limitations in a grotesque manner,
Yes, this really is standard for a wizard. Many scrolls of timestop, a huge demiplane made of whatever, a ton of minions doing his bidding, always knowing when he is in trouble and being able to escape beforehand.
That's not standard for a wizard. That's what's standard in theoretical availability to a wizard. But a wizard needs to have made his knowledge checks, needs to have the appropriate specializations, needs to have a large number of ducks in a row to pull off the specifics of what you're suggesting. And, more than all that, a given wizard requires a certain level of system mastery in order to do this kind of thing.
And what happens when he faces another wizard?
The point isn't that you can't do this. In fact, I argue you can. That's what I mean by agreeing that "it's standard" as in, "anyone with the proper checks, information, and system knowledge before hand can do this." But it's certainly not "standard" as in "this is how games go", though. That's a different thing altogether
So, when I play like, a fighter, I know I can pick any feat, really and it wont mess things up in a game. I want there to be the same situation for wizards. I want to be able to play a wizard and look at his feats and discoveries, and instead of having to think "If I pick this spell and use it by RAW no one else will get to play as I solve all the world's issues", or "If I pick this spell I am going to have to do a bunch of OOC finagling to make sure the campaign doesn't break".
It would be nice to play a wizard and not have to worry about those things, kind of like if I play a fighter.
And here is where you lose me. Do you want to play a wizard like you play a fighter? Why not just play fighter? If you're worried about "accidentally" breaking the game, you needn't. You clearly know where the boundaries are.
If you're worried about doing out of character stuff:
1) never make the knowledge checks required to know stuff about the creatures in question
2) be a wizard that has illusion as your prohibited school
3) tone down the power-seeking effect
4) play someone who knows for a fact (or at least really believes they do) that if they try this, or anything like it, "it will end them" (or everything).
Voila. Any of those are in-character solutions.
The GM can always - always - nerf this stuff. That's fine, too, and is part of the GMs job. You don't have to worry about it. If it becomes an issue, just get the GM to do the GM thing and apply fiat.
EDIT: I am still waiting for the people who are making WBL claims to extrapolate on their claim.
I'm not entirely sure on this one. Sorry I can't help you.
(I mean, I get the basic idea: they're saying that use of Bloodmoney+Wish doesn't allow you to sidestep the WBL guidelines. But I don't have the foggiest on what ground they stand for claiming such in a rules-neutral position, given WBL is a guideline, not an absolute rule or limit, and creating a being whole-cloth seems like you followed them.)
"Link to designer specifically stating that it is both assumed and designed under said assumption that a DM will determine 'appropriate' in regards to a simulacrum. Link to creative director explaining how he envisions the spell."
Response: "That's just his opinion, and he admits it isn't in the RAW! Winning!"
Wow. That level of cognitive dissonance suggests that there is no real chance of changing your mind, rendering further discussion on the matter inappropriate. Perhaps you should consider a position in Congress, or on the Supreme Court. In any event, I don't think I could lay it down more clearly than Peter did in his last post.
Like most internet arguments, this doesn't actually exist for real games that go on for substantial periods of time. Either the group embraces the wonkyness of an unmitigated simulacrum fest, or they deny it in some fashion. Perhaps by banning it, but I suspect more likely by running it more reasonably.
LazarX, I think that is a fantastic houserule for the spell, and probably one that should have been built in. Blood money, unlike simulacrum, is fairly poorly worded. Does it exist in PF, or just 3.5?
I for one, miss the component requirement for the simulacrum spell that existed in 3.5. I have reinstated it in my own games, no doubt singlehandedly preventing all of the nonsense that seems to accompany it when discussed online.
Kain Darkwind:
You know those designers can errata or change it if they don't like the way it functions under the RAW now right? And that most of us would be very happy to see that happen? Or are you spouting a bunch of assumptions about others people position that they haven't stated (surely not, but I had to ask you understand).
Also as most 3.5 people know, the material component of simulacrum was never an obstacle as one could Eschew materials it away (as it had no cost) or simply Planar Bind/Ally or Gate a subject to acquire a hair making such a houserule mostly useless in preventing simulacrum abuse.
All of this also ignores that simple making half HD simulacrums of yourself is still absurdly powerful and is decidedly within the both intent and rules of the spell.
I think it's been fairly clear that most people run things fairly in accordance with what Peter has suggested, including the devs themselves. And another chunk run things unbridled, but happily so. The rules as written say 'appropriate', and each game gets to determine what is appropriate. I think that's probably a superior approach than trying to hash out every possible simulacrum option. I can think of games in which an army of wish granting efreeti would be very appropriate, and others in which it would not.
As for eschew materials, I suppose making it a focus for the spell might circumvent it. But then I'm not going to have players trying to get around the requirement that they have genetic material from the creature they are simulating. Period. If you need tighter wording, that's on you. I don't.
As for making half HD simulacrums being absurdly powerful, I think it opens a lot of opportunities. If even that is too powerful for your game, obviously you'll need to ban it. It doesn't disrupt mine at all.