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.
Ah so you agree than that while many people play it with houserules, by RAW the half-HD Efreeti's work? I'm glad since I was getting a different impression from your earlier post.
No, not in the slightest. I'm saying that appropriate, the term written into the RAW you are placing such value on, allows a variety of different results, ranging from 3/day wish 5HD efreet to no simulacrum being allowed to have any spell-like ability and a host of options in between. I'm glad I was able to illuminate your ignorance on my position.
No, not in the slightest. I'm saying that appropriate, the term written into the RAW you are placing such value on, allows a variety of different results, ranging from 3/day wish 5HD efreet to no simulacrum being allowed to have any spell-like ability and a host of options in between. I'm glad I was able to illuminate your ignorance on my position.
Ah, but only one of those positions is using the rules in the Bestiary to achieve an appropriate 5 HD Efreeti and those have Wish. So the rules only really support that method, the rest is supported solely by fiat. So it only seemed natural you would support the one that was in the rules as RAW, my mistake.
Nope! Just decreasing the hit dice as outlined in the rules I quoted above in the thread. I reduced the 10 HD Efreets BAB, skills, saves and feats as appropriate. I even remembered to remove an ability score increase. Since there's no table that indicates they gain their SLAs at a particular HD like Dragons do, I made sure it kept all of them along with their Change Size and Heat abilities. It was a pretty easy to get an appropriate 5 HD Efreeti when I followed the rules laid out in the book for doing so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
James Jacobs explicitly stating that blood money only works with standard action spellsWith all due respect to James, that's a forum thread, not a FAQ or an errata document. The spell as written does NOT exclude other spells. Until it is corrected, RAW is that you can use it for any spell.
The spell as written says the components dissapear in one round. Anything that is not casted within that time, can't be casted.
Kain: read the following as amused, not angry. I know how it can come across in text. Sorry.
"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!"
This is just rude. I'm not claiming "Winning" at all.
If you go over the threads, the various designer statements, and so on, across these boards, unless something is errata'd, it isn't part of the rules. As I noted above, a designer's opinion is both important and valid, but it's not a rule.
This is not me "winning". This is me "clarifying". You see that? That's a pretty big difference. :)
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.
Thanks, but I'd rather keep my job as a stay-at-home-dad. Requires a similar level of cognitive dissonance to communicate with a toddler. :)
In any event, I don't think I could lay it down more clearly than Peter did in his last post.
I'm sure you could, if you put your mind to it! Peter is very intelligent (and well-researched besides!), but can come off quite poorly when he doesn't like something and chooses to oppose it. I like the guy, he can just come off the wrong way sometimes.
()
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.
For example!
This is an excellent point. I agree: most people run it more reasonably. Which is more or less what I've noted above in the post you dismiss.
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?
Blood Money was created by and for PF exclusively. It never existed in 3.5.
I agree: I like Laz' house rules as great house rules! (I just wish he was a bit more genteel in his approach, because dude: you're being really harsh in your apparent tone, here.)
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.
I agree. I think that was a poor choice on PF's part to remove. But that is where we are, RAW. (The Eschew Materials is rather well debated, and it's still part of the whole RAW v. House Rule thing, but having that extra little bit gave more power and leeway to the GM.)
Other ways I've handle these things in the past is by creating various kinds of similar-but-different spells, and treating the "base" spell, in the book, as kind of the "perfect, but not-often-attainable" version. Thus you have a Simulacrum spell that:
- requires a piece of the creature copied [as per the 3.X version]
or
- doesn't have any magical ability [no spellcasting for you!]
or
- all magical ability it does have is illusory instead of real (this is especially hard on those simulacra with illusion as their forbidden school) [it's worth noting: in many variants of this in different games we've run, even illusions can become real if they "persist" long enough, meaning they can actually become flesh-and-blood (or whatever) reality, instead of being a magical effect]
or
- once a given magical ability is "used" (daily, weekly, whatever), it can never be regained by a given simulacrum [going by a hardline active interpretation of a "simulacrum can never become more powerful"]
or (in a variant of the above)
- as above, except that it can only be restored by expensive ritual, like the hit points [which makes simulacra useful, but still expensive]
That's all I've done, personally, but I've seen others. And yet, these are all house rules. I've also used the unmitigated version. That was fun.
Also:
I'm saying that appropriate, the term written into the RAW you are placing such value on, allows a variety of different results, ranging from 3/day wish 5HD efreet to no simulacrum being allowed to have any spell-like ability and a host of options in between. I'm glad I was able to illuminate your ignorance on my position.
This is what my post was also saying. You know: the one you dismissed with your "cognitive dissonance" comment.
Please read it again.
My point was never that there is "only one way". My point was always that one way follows more RAW than the others, but there are multiple interpretations of the RAW spell.
For the curious, here's the monster advancement charts, which explicitly notes:
The following rules allow you to adjust monsters, increasing (or even decreasing) their statistics and abilities while still creating a balanced and fun encounter.
It notes that the following rules allow you to adjust monsters (both up and down), including decreasing their statistics and abilities, and while you're doing so, it allows you to create a balanced and fun encounter. We even have a chart! It even shows us higher and, most importantly, lower CRs!
The steps:
1) plan the monster: Easy enough; we're planning a half-hit-dice simulacrum version of an efreeti (it does note one place of GM fiat: whether or not the creature increases in size when it increases its hit dice by 50% or more - of course what it states is that this is a general rule - and thus presumed by a player -, but the GM can feel free to ignore this).
2) add hit dice: Or, in our case, decrease hit dice by adding a negative amount; this keeps the ability RAW ("adding"), while following what's noted above (that they can be decreased using this method).
3) modify ability scores: This is a little ambiguous. Since I added negative hit dice, one can presume that I lost hit dice, but I still "added" something and thus is "gained" something, even a negative number, thus increasing hit dice (and, incidentally, increasing in size). That seems rather torturous, though, so I'll reduce the ability scores, because, with most understandings of the English language, that's the corollary that would be implied and/or presumed. Of course, that's not RAW, either. The closest to RAW would be to say that since I didn't actually "gain" any hit dice, the creature's ability scores would not change. Multiple interpretations are possible! Given that the chart above only shows a "smaller to bigger" change, I'm presuming (but note: it's a presumption! Multiple Interpretations!) that you aren't supposed to decrease the size (at least not without a template or a specific chart that trumps these general rules).
4) choose skills and feats: It notes exactly how feats work, so we know for sure. (The half-hit dice efreeti ends up losing some feats). It's a little more ambiguous for skills, but it's pretty clear that it's not making new rules for skills, but going with the default skill rules, thus we go with those (meaning the efreeti simulacrum loses skills compared to the base one).
5) adjust statistics: This is based off of the Hit Dice adjustment above. It's pretty straightforward.
6) compare to existing monsters: This is for final CR determination. We don't really care, but it's a step we have to take nonetheless. Our first step is to compare monster statistics to get a rough value-estimate, and then proceed from there. I'd give us (at a complete guess, I'm feeling lazy right now) a CR of 5 or maybe 6, due to the potent spell-like abilities, but relatively low hit dice.
And voila: we've got a simulacrum.
It's worth noting what is not covered in those rules: special abilities. It leaves special abilities by hit dice up to specific instances.
To head off the "statistics" wording argument, while only certain things are noted under "adjust statistics" section, the word "statistics" is used in a very broad number of cases, and the wording of that step says "such as", meaning that it is an exclusive term in that case, but not all-encompassing or all-defining for "statistics". Also, there is no way to decrease the statistics they note there by way of increasing total hit dice.
Also: here it notes,
The next step in creating a monster is to determine the approximate number of Hit Dice it has. Hit Dice determine a wide variety of other statistics, including the creature's feats, skills, Hit Points, attack bonuses, and special ability DCs.
This means that, according to the rules, hit dice are a "statistic" that can be adjusted.
As to the "adding a negative" counter-argument: yes, I know how far it's stretching. However, it's still within RAW (especially as RAW notes that you can decrease statistics).
Which has kind of been my point. The same one Kain Darkwind made after he denigrated my post that was making that very point. There are multiple interpretations. Not everyone will use the same ones at the table. That's fine.
However, lacking a GM (which the forums are) it is reasonable to assume any one of those interpretations can or will be used in a given build, until proven otherwise at a specific table.
A given interpretation may be rejected by a given table. Which is excellent, and makes sense. I approve of that.
The inherent pliability of written and spoken language is exactly the sort of thing diabolists and similar infernal forces use to "hook" people by way of their own presumptions. It's also one of the reasons we have GMs as a form of arbiter in case a group disagrees with itself. It's why I'm all for GMs.
Builds like this are unlikely to fly at most tables. When asked "why", the GM will give their specific answer. If someone insists that RAW be followed for their own benefit, the other players' fun regardless, then they are playing into a classic lawful evil trope. Most people won't like that (or them) for long.
Those times builds like this will fly are great! They can be ridiculous, silly, and fun. They can also be relatively serious and intriguing. I'm curious: how would this wizard deal with the pit fiend, efreeti, and lich-wizard with the same boons, (only more, because they've had longer to do it)? That could be an interesting story in and of itself.
The only problem I've had with this thread at all is that, upon reflection, what could have been a funny thread of good funtimes was immediately turned into a flame-war-esque of "NOT IN MY HOUSE!" style thread.
If CWheezy meant the thread to be a fun good time romp (which is how I interpreted the OP), it was pretty immediately ruined.
If CWheezy meant the thread to be a baited argumentative unhappy-land fest, the bait was rather immediately latched on - which is pretty much the opposite of what one wants to do in these sorts of cases.
Either way, the thread isn't very good and has turned into mostly a bunch of people saying similar things with a different spin.
If anyone has any problems with the way I've "presented" you, please PM me, we'll talk about it. I've not meant any insult at all. Noting particular strengths and weaknesses of individuals can be hurtful, especially in a text-based medium.
EDIT: quote tags instead of url. HAHA! Wow, what a silly mistake that was.
EDIT 2: also worth noting that, given the current RAW, without adding negatives, it's impossible to create monsters (even by GMs) with lower-than-normal hit dice. That makes a specific Kingmaker challenge that springs to mind (as well as a few other published creatures) not-RAW. Which is okay, too. You know what else isn't RAW?
- the mana wastes
- mythic rules replacing epic ones (unless that has been errata'd or changed in the recent printings of the CR)
- gods being killed by a host of demon lords
- gods being able to kill a demon lord
- Juju oracles not being able to make non-evil undead
- clerics requiring a god
- a ton of other setting presumptions that make Golarion the unique, interesting, and nifty setting that it is
And that's fine. It's great!
Personally, when I grant an NPC something, it is always theoretically within the grasp of players willing to go for it (presuming they want to go through the same "hoops" the NPC does; though I might attempt to verbally dissuade them first); similarly if a PC has something, it's always within the grasp of NPCs.
If a player is disrupting the fun for the rest of the table... that's got to be stopped. If not... more for everyone!
On forum threads: let's just have fun.
Bother. I didn't think of this until after the fact, so I can't edit this into my above post.
Let me be clear. Really clear. RAW is no reason to order around the GM.
So long as a GM is being reasonable, a character can be reasonable too.
Many people put "metagaming" as a kind of dirty word. It's not. "Out of character" ideas and limitations can make for great "in character" development.
While I enjoy taking RAW and making a functioning world out of it, it's not an infinitely fine proposition. There are always going to be things that aren't covered. Bathroom breaks, sweat, bleeding (the damage mechanic aside), insects that are too small to have any statistics and aren't part of a swarm, and so on.
The rules are phenomenal. They model so many parts of reality so casually and easily, it's amazing. But they aren't infinitely inclusive, they can't be, and shouldn't be.
TO THAT END, metagaming things becomes a necessity sometimes in gaming groups. SIMILAR TO, though different from metagaming in order to alter what your character would do.
An example from Order of the Stick creator Rich Burlew (paraphrased): if the chaotic bard attempts to steal something and gets cursed because of it, your lawful monk doesn't need to attack the bard or even constantly berate him. A minor remark - at most - is all you need, plus the idea that you - after not stealing - are not cursed whereas he is.
This may be "metagaming", if your monk character is militantly lawful. But if he's militantly lawful in a game with chaotic allies, you're the one that's potentially causing the most problems in the group and potentially ruining the over-all fun quotient. The same thing applies both ways, of course. Of, if you and the other players are into PvP, then it's a non-issue.
Ultimately, whatever works at a given table is part of that given table's social contract. It's often not written, often not spoken, and often not clarified. It's more often (from my experience, and the apparent experience of most people here) just kind of presumed.
If you actually do run into problems... talk about it with the possibility and probability of changing yourself to minimize or remove those problems. This applies to both GMs and players equally.
It's interesting that D&D - a game of imagination and inspiration - is, at its core, a very lawful game who's purpose leans toward the "good" of all those playing it collectively. It does, however, permit individuality and variance, and, in fact, encourages this with the option of Rule 0 written into the base rules. In that way, ironically, if you're acting in the capacity of a GM, nothing is against the rules.
But there is one more important rule. The most important one, perhaps. I don't recall if it's in the text anywhere. It should be. It's the same one as the forums.
The most important rule: Don't be a jerk. We want our messageboards to be a fun and friendly place.
And I think if we all take the steps necessary to enact this - regardless of what those steps are - in-game as well as in-forum, the preponderance of our problems just vanish. Not all, of course. Humans are a fractious and irritable lot. We find fault with anything at all, as well as nothing at all. But the majority, certainly.
That includes stepping outside of our comfort or fun zones in little ways for the over-all good of the group (lawful good). In that way, also, we should make room for most any individual variance, tastes, or preferences so long as those aren't overtly harmful (chaotic good).
Demanding one-true-wayism (lawful) or RAW-only in a table situation regardless of the outcome on others for our own gain (lawful evil), arbitrarily changing or ignoring the rules for our own gain (chaotic evil), or just changing everything on a whim just for individualism (chaotic) can cause a lot of problems.
Individuality (chaos) bounded by arbitrated group-consensus (law) for the collective boon of everyone's fun quotient.
Or, you know, "Don't be a jerk."
The spell as written says the components dissapear in one round. Anything that is not casted within that time, can't be casted.When are components for a spell used up?
If I cast stoneskin, and you interrupt, do I lose my components?
If yes, then blood money works on anything with a long cast time, because components are used up right away.
So you are trying to say me that you believe that in Simulacrum, you use half a ton of snow and 5000 gp of ruby powder in six seconds, and then you spend 11 hours 59 minutes and 54 seconds walking iddle with nothing to do, and THEN make a disguise roll to see how well your 6 seconds sculpting went 12 hours ago?
To answer your questions:
1) When the spell is cast, not when it is being casted
2) yes
3) no, because they are spent for different reasons. When you cast a spell, your material components dissapear. When you are interrupted, your material components dissapear too, even if you havent used them yet:
" If something interrupts your concentration while you're casting, you must make a concentration check or lose the spell. When you make a concentration check, you roll d20 and add your caster level and the ability score modifier used to determine bonus spells of the same type. Clerics, druids, and rangers add their Wisdom modifier. Bards, paladins, and sorcerers add their Charisma modifier. Finally, wizards add their Intelligence modifier. The more distracting the interruption and the higher the level of the spell you are trying to cast, the higher the DC (see Table: Concentration Check DCs). If you fail the check, you lose the spell just as if you had cast it to no effect."
So, forget about blood money for a moment. If you start to cast Simulacrum, the hard way (with the snow and the ruby powder being paid), and somebody visit you when you have already spent 6 hours with the casting, sculpting it and doing stuff, the snow is there. It hasn't dissapeared in the first round. If that guy hit you with a baseball bat, and you lose your concentration, yes, then the material components (both the snow and the ruby powder) dissapear as if you had cast it to no effect
Same goes with, say, a 3 round casting of restoration. You need to have your material component with you for the whole casting. If you start to cast it, and in round 2 a rogue steal the diamond dust from you, your spell fails (just like if he silence you, or stop you to use somatic components). The dust is there for the whole casting, and it dissapear when the spell is cast. If I interrupt you , then the dust dissapear as if you had cast the spell to no effect
Of course I am not saying that, I am saying the material components that cost money are used right away, and then you spend 12 hours sculpting.
Saying the components are used for "different reasons" unfortunately does not follow in pathfinder, rules are rules
I quoted the rules that say why ypu lose the components when you are interrupted. I quoted the rules whixh said the components are used when he spell is cast (not when it is being cast). I also mentioned that you have to be able to use all ypur components during the whole duration of the casting. If you are silenced, tied, or removed from your material components in any point during the casting, the spell is interrupted. If someone melta your ice sculpture during the 3rd hour of casting, your spell is interrupted. If someone steal your powdered ruby in the second hour, it is interrupted too. If it disapear in second round because some one teleprt or disintegrate it, same thing. If it disapear because of blood money... same stuff.
Also, you say you are sculpting for 12 hours. But not only the ice is a material component you have to manipulate and work with all the components for the whole duration. You don't sculpt ice, you sculpt ruby powdered ice.
I'd like to see a rule that says the components are used and dissapear inthe first round, and that you can't steal the diamond dust of a restoration spell in the sevond round of casting because it dissapeared in the first round. Otherwise, rules are rules, but you are just making up rules so it fits your theory. Why is the ruby powder needed only one round, but the ice is needed 12 hours?
Imagine I use blood money to copy the ice, and pay for the ruby normally. Maybe vecouse I'm filthy rich but lice ib a desert. Do I get 1 round of ice, then spend 12 hours sculpting powder? Does the powder dissapear in obe round too if I paid it? Then what I'm doing for 12 hours?
|
Since there's no table that indicates they gain their SLAs at a particular HD like Dragons do, I made sure it kept all of them along with their Change Size and Heat abilities.
You still forgot the special abilities portion:
"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)."
It wouldn't be in the spell if the special abilities were to be left alone. Now, you can rule that they get all of them, and someone else can rule that they don't. Neither is definitively wrong, but neither is definitively right either. It's an adjudication.
|
Hubba, hubba, It is obvious that not everyone on here will agree. One of the ways I try to balance what my character does is to compare it to what I as a GM would allow.
So would I as a GM allow 6-6th level characters combine a 6th of there WBL to purchase a scroll and than create a simo of an efreeti that grants them wishes?
For those saying that such efreeti can be made, would you really allow this in your game? Or, or you just a player pushing the boundaries?
Hubba, hubba, It is obvious that not everyone on here will agree. One of the ways I try to balance what my character does is to compare it to what I as a GM would allow.
So would I as a GM allow 6-6th level characters combine a 6th of there WBL to purchase a scroll and than create a simo of an efreeti that grants them wishes?
For those saying that such efreeti can be made, would you really allow this in your game? Or, or you just a player pushing the boundaries?
As a GM I did. It was pretty awesome.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For those saying that such efreeti can be made, would you really allow this in your game? Or, or you just a player pushing the boundaries?
I have never seen this done, and doubt I'll ever see it, because it's one of those things that fall in the "gentleman agreement" of PC and GM.
However, by the rules, it's possible. Not only because the SLA aren't based in the HD (yes, a 5 hd efreet casting wishes is casting a spell well beyond his HD. Fun fact: a 10 HD efreet casting wishes also is casting a spell well beyond his HD). The fact is, when you make a simulacrum of a creature with class levels, the class levels are lost first. This is canon, and shown in certain NPCs simulacra in Rise of Runelords. So a 10hd efreet with 10 levels in fighter, or sorcerer, would work. And you don't need to know the efreet, by raw. It doesn't even need to be an alive efreet. If ANY efreet, EVER, have had 10 levels of whatever (including 10 levels of aristocrat), you can copy that, and get a free wishing efreet. If your GM says no single efreet, ever, in history, has got 10 class levels... well, that's bassically like saying "I'm not going to let you use that spell". Which is a perfectly valid answer, but then why try to hide it as a "rule reason"? Just say "I'm not going to allow you to use that spell" or simply "simulacrum doesn't work in my world". Also, there are other creatures able to cast wish. It's hard to defend that a 10hd Efreet can cast wish, but a 10hd Solar can't, specially if you also try to defend that a 5hd efreet can't cast wish, because wish is tied to HD and not to race.
Fun fact is people make a lot of wush about this spell, when it's not the only spell that breaks (the economy of) the game. If you Planar Bind a Lantern Archon for a week of work, you get 7x24x60x10=100800 rounds of free cost Continual light, which mean roughly 2.5 million gold profit per week. That's 100+ wishes per week. I don't know how many wishes does your character need, but if you need more, you can cast more than one planar binding, just in case.
So yes, Simulacrum can ruin completely a game in the hands of a jerk player. It's not the only spell that does that. Arguing that the spell isn't broken is stupid, because it IS broken. Even if you use the "no SLA for race" option, it can be circunvent through copying class leveled stuff. And even without that, copying (and paying for) half a dozen of Tarrasque simulacrum give you a nice bunch of mounts to ride, just in case. The thing that keep the game being ruined is the gentlemen agreement among PC and GMs, not the vague wording of the spell. Because it can be dodged, and even if it's not, you can easily use any other of the dozen options that make you insanely (to the point of "infinite") rich.
Four points of contention, gustavo:
1) I allowed full shenanigans of this sort in my Council of Thieves AP. It's worked quite well so far. We got to book five, the campaign was still heading forward on full steam, and we've stuck fairly close to the books in the way they were presented. A combination of resource and time management has kept them mostly "occupied" (at the player's option and choice - she's in the midst of conquering another demiplane while adventuring on the material), but with occasional wish or twelve pulled into the game. Hasn't actually broken anything yet.
2) The canon-thing is interesting, and not something I've known, previously. James Jacobs went on record stating that, in his opinion (and he specified it was opinion, not rules), a simulacrum lost half of all its class levels, even if that didn't make sense. I was presuming that was canon.
3) I can see a GM requiring you to know (or at least know about) the efreeti in question you're trying to make a copy of. It then becomes less, "No, you can't use this spell" and more, "I'm going to make you work for it." The former just shuts stuff off, while the latter makes for a more interesting story (to me).
4) While the majority of what keeps a game on track is the "gentlemen's agreement" as you put it (what I refer to as the "social contract"), it's worth noting that sometimes a GM can save themselves tremendous headaches by changing or mending broken rules. Not all players that would be disruptive are going to be disruptive regardless. Sometimes they strike only due to opportunity. I've seen all kinds of disruptive, and it doesn't always stem from the same source.
Otherwise, a great post. :)
() :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Four points of contention, gustavo:
1) I allowed full shenanigans of this sort in my Council of Thieves AP. It's worked quite well so far. We got to book five, the campaign was still heading forward on full steam, and we've stuck fairly close to the books in the way they were presented. A combination of resource and time management has kept them mostly "occupied" (at the player's option and choice - she's in the midst of conquering another demiplane while adventuring on the material), but with occasional wish or twelve pulled into the game. Hasn't actually broken anything yet.
That's because the gentelmen's agreemant/social contract is not broken there. There's no problem with people wanting to play superheroes of cosmic power like Silver Surfer, gem-wielding Adam Warlock, or The Spectre. The problem comes when someone try to be Silver Surfer in a Vigilante campaign.
2) The canon-thing is interesting, and not something I've known, previously. James Jacobs went on record stating that, in his opinion (and he specified it was opinion, not rules), a simulacrum lost half of all its class levels, even if that didn't make sense. I was presuming that was canon.
It's in Rise of Runelords, the simulacrum of a HD outsider with bard levels, lost the bard levels but kept the HD.
3) I can see a GM requiring you to know (or at least know about) the efreeti in question you're trying to make a copy of. It then becomes less, "No, you can't use this spell" and more, "I'm going to make you work for it." The former just shuts stuff off, while the latter makes for a more interesting story (to me).
Sadly, you don't need to know him. With the curren incarnation of the rules, I can make a copy of the Tarrasque without having met him, ever. A good roll of Knowledge Planes or History might give you the name of Ali Khali, the Sultan's Iron Hand, a warrior of legend among the Efreet, who was unable to lose a fight. Copy him, and you are done. You don't need a part of him, you don't need to meet him, you don't even need the ice sculpture look like him (you can even miss the disguise check on purpose, so no one would ever think it's him when looking at him). Technically, you could make him pink, with a big yellow nose and duck feet, that it's still going to be "magically" a perfect copy of him, with half the HD.
So to avoid this, the GM must say that NO efreet, EVER in history, got to 10th level. Which is just another way to say "no, you can't use this spell". I find this fall well into the GM territory, and I don't think it's bad GMing (au contraire). But I don't understand the fixation of some people in this board to "argue" that the spell "is not broken" because it can "be handled within the rules" or whatever. The spell IS broken. It's not a problem in most tables because most players won't try to be a jerk, and when they try, most GM will just nerf it.4) While the majority of what keeps a game on track is the "gentlemen's agreement" as you put it (what I refer to as the "social contract"), it's worth noting that sometimes a GM can save themselves tremendous headaches by changing or mending broken rules. Not all players that would be disruptive are going to be disruptive regardless. Sometimes they strike only due to opportunity. I've seen all kinds of disruptive, and it doesn't always stem from the same source.
That's true, but in those cases I find the best option is "please Bob, don't came to the game next week". If a player *wants* to be a jerk, he'll ruin everybody's fun, whatever the rules are. You can be a jerk just by arguing everything, rules-lawyering, delaying your turn, starting off-topic conversations avery 5 minutes to cut the flow of the game, or just chat through wasssap and make everybody angry with your phone rings.
Otherwise, a great post. :)
Thanks ;)
() :)
Well, a efreet could try to screw your wish. A simulacrum of an efreet won't, though, as it is under your complete command, at every moment.
Simulacra of The Tarrasque are good too. They have less HD and HP, but hey, you can have *an army* of them. And they keep the awesome stuff like reflecting caparace, huge regeneration, and the whole inmortality stuff, making them a nice mount for the party's cavalier :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I came here for advice on a 20th level wizard build and ended up rolling thanks to this nerd flame war from 2013.