| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see this as an issue where someone is asking for a rule to be changed. He's asking for a clarification. That's what FAQs are for.
As for trying to play the tough guy? SMH, yo... SMH.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think in this case it's warranted since this is one of the (if not THE) most frequently used examples of something being broken in the Pathfinder ruleset.
Everyone thinks issues that they are passionate about are warranted. What I'm saying doing this makes our job a little harder. And, if your are correct (and you may be) wouldn't it get enough FAQ hits without the need for such appeals?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And, if your are correct (and you may be)
"May" be? Google "scry-and-die" sometime. It even shows up in Televesion Tropes and Idioms. And the mind-numbing potential for abuse of the simulacrum spell isn't far behind.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think in this case it's warranted since this is one of the (if not THE) most frequently used examples of something being broken in the Pathfinder ruleset.Everyone thinks issues that they are passionate about are warranted. What I'm saying doing this makes our job a little harder. And, if you are correct (and you may be) wouldn't it get enough FAQ hits without the need for such appeals?
Maybe. A lot of people don't think to hit FAQ until someone reminds them it's an option.
Some people are discouraged at how long this has been around and assume hitting FAQ is useless.
Of the FAQ guidelines I think the "No asking for FAQs" one is the only one that's a bit too general.
"No asking for FAQs in the thread title", "No repeatedly bumping your thread asking for FAQs", etc. are great guidelines, but the occasional "FAQ if you don't mind" type post isn't too much IMO.
And, if your are correct (and you may be)"May" be? Google "scry-and-die" sometime. It even shows up in Televesion Tropes and Idioms. And the mind-numbing potential for abuse of the simulacrum spell isn't far behind.
Wrong thread m8. I think. It looks like it was meant to go in the "Scry and Die" thread.
I know t is not an errata but it woudl be an easier errata if just they decided to do it. Just replace a number in the CRB, and a couple of numbers for the tactician and the lorewarden and profit.And add two more skill points per level to every published fighter character in every adventure module...
Does the lack of those have a big impact for those fighters?
I am much more concerned with Players characters that with NPcs that are supposed to die after one (or couple more) of battles.
People are passionate about whatever is the topic of the week. I'm sure most people who were passionate about something 2 months ago can barely remember it anymore.
People also FAQ the strangest things. I had a thread that got 103 FAQs. And it was just about the totem warrior archetype and what it did. Sure, it was asked fairly often. But over 100? People are weird!
I'm pretty sure everyone that looked at Totem Warrior immediately asked themselves "What is this?" so I'm not surprised it got so many FAQs.
Wrong thread m8. I think. It looks like it was meant to go in the "Scry and Die" thread.
They're sister threads; what goes for one more or less applies to the other as well. We've got spells that even DrDeth admits don't work the way they're written -- ones that crack all the gentleman's assumptions open like Humpty-Dumptey, for anyone who bothers to read them and think about things for a minute or two.
I still have no idea what Totem Warrior does...
I still have no idea what Totem Warrior does...
Nothing. It does nothing. It's vestigial text from when archetypes weren't a set-in-stone thing, used more as a guide to a character type (by showing what those with the totem powers usually also had!) than as any real rules support.
Think of the Roles from the Player Companion line.
PS- need more FAQ, guys, please.I understand you are passionate about this issue, see it as an important issue and we are going to look into it, but this kind of post should keep in mind the guidelines set out in the "The Rules FAQ, and How to Use It" sticky. (Or as I like to call it the FAQ FAQ).
I want a rule changed. Should I start a thread and ask people to FAQ-click it?
No. The FAQ is not to be used to get rules changed. Posts attempting to use the FAQ for this purpose will be cleared from the FAQ queue.Keep in mind that the FAQ is exactly that: Frequently asked questions. Not questions you want answered and can get enough people to push a button. I know the distinction may seem subtle, but it is there.
We need this for a few reasons. It is important for us to distinguish legitimate FAQ items from an artificial echo chamber effect or the creation of items that seem more of a concern than they actually are because of a "get out the vote" campaign. It helps us get a genuine and unbiased idea of the trouble spots in our rules and our user's experience.
It also allows us to look at issues that are real for new players, and not focus on corner case rules and exceptions.
Lastly cuts down on the danger of making this process a kind of skinner box zoo, and allows us to prioritize issues and workload.
By the FAQ FAQ's guidelines I should clear it from the FAQ now. I will not this time as a warning. Please avoid this kind of lobbying in the future, please.
Thanks everyone.
Sorry, and thanks for the input.
People are passionate about whatever is the topic of the week. I'm sure most people who were passionate about something 2 months ago can barely remember it anymore.
People also FAQ the strangest things. I had a thread that got 103 FAQs. And it was just about the totem warrior archetype and what it did. Sure, it was asked fairly often. But over 100? People are weird!
Not sure why. It seems to be a totally valid question that deserved an answer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unlike the scry and fry thread I do think the rules here are vague and unclear, and one might read the simulacrum spell and come away with legitimate uncertainty as to the intent of the rules or the meaning of "appropriate" abilities. FAQed.
Simulacrum changes the creatures hit-die which means the GM creates a custom half-HD monster. In the bestiary there is guidelines for advancing HD, that include adding new spell-like abilities. You are also free to remove spell-like abilities when you reduce a creatures HD. That is just the RAW (yes the RAW ask for GMs to make up monsters).
This is how James Jacobs would run it
2) Would you change what kind of spell like abilities a simulacrum creature has compared to the original?2) I might, in some cases, where the spell-like abilities allow the creator of the simulacrum access to spells that he shouldn't yet have access too (such as a djinni's wish).
This doesn't need an FAQ, the rules are clear. What simulacrum does need is a simulacrum template, but that is a rules change not an FAQ.
How Jacobs would rule something is not the same thing as what the rules say.
In the bestiary there is guidelines for advancing HD, that include adding new spell-like abilities.
Could you point me to where it talks about adding new spell-like abilities? I'm not seeing that in my copy of the Bestiary.
How Jacobs would rule something is not the same thing as what the rules say.TRUE BUT IT MAY BE RAI
In the bestiary there is guidelines for advancing HD, that include adding new spell-like abilities.Could you point me to where it talks about adding new spell-like abilities? I'm not seeing that in my copy of the Bestiary.
pg 295
ADDING RACIAL HIT DICE
first paragraph, last sentence
"It[adding HD] can also include additional spellcasting capability and other powers"
Yeah, I saw that. Some monsters have spellcasting or caster level tied to HD. (Or at least, their caster level is equal to their HD, so I assume they are supposed to be the same.) Changing HD would mean changing that. For example, if you reduced the HD of a nymph from 7 to 5, you would decrease her effective druid level from 7 to 5.
But it's a stretch to take that sentence to say that removing HD means removing SLAs, rather than just reducing the caster level. In particular, there are absolutely no guidelines for how that works. Clearly, you can't just remove any SLAs that (as spells) require a higher caster level than the monster's HD. That would mean, for example, that shadow demons (7 HD, caster level 10) shouldn't have access to greater teleport.
I think it's a stretch to say that sentence does not apply to spell-like abilities. Which are considered as spells and spellcasting in the rules.
There is no clear method of doing this (just like advancing HD which specifically says you should treat it like designing a new monster). The GM making up things is the RAW. That's why a template would be nice.
It does apply to spell-like abilities: changing a monster's HD can affect the caster level for its spell-like abilities. And of course as a GM you can add new SLAs to monsters with extra HD. You see this sometimes in variations on monsters in the Bestiary. For example, noble efreet have more spell-like abilities than normal efreet.
But that's not the same as having rules for adding/removing SLAs when changing HD of monsters. "As a GM, you can change things if you want" isn't a rule.
It does apply to spell-like abilities: changing a monster's HD can affect the caster level for its spell-like abilities. And of course as a GM you can add new SLAs to monsters with extra HD. You see this sometimes in variations on monsters in the Bestiary. For example, noble efreet have more spell-like abilities than normal efreet.
But that's not the same as having rules for adding/removing SLAs when changing HD of monsters. "As a GM, you can change things if you want" isn't a rule.
If you can add new abilities when adding HD, why would you be unable to remove abilities when removing HD?
You can remove SLAs when removing HD. You're the GM. You can do whatever you want. That doesn't mean there are rules for it.
You can remove SLAs when removing HD. You're the GM. You can do whatever you want. That doesn't mean there are rules for it.
That doesn't answer my question.
I don't see how. You can remove SLAs for the same reason you can add them: as a GM, you can do what you want. The Bestiary does explicitly say this. But it's still not a rule.
I don't see how. You can remove SLAs for the same reason you can add them: as a GM, you can do what you want. The Bestiary does explicitly say this. But it's still not a rule.
It is outlined in the rules when you can add new SLAs.
You do have to be a GM to use this rule. But that does not mean it is not there.
EDIT: Also, I am finding it odd how you said "Bestiary does explicitly say this" and "it's still not a rule". So a rules books explicitly says a rule, but it's not a rule because?
I'm saying that it's not a rule to tell the GM that they can change things. It's the complete opposite of a rule.
Actually, let's just apply this argument straight to simulacrum rather than just in the monster advancement rules.
Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs.
This clearly says that the GM can change simulacrum to make it actually work. Therefore there is no reason to have any clarification on the spell. The rules already allow the GM to change the spell for whatever reason (such as the spell being broken). Hell, this resolves every rule question or conflict ever: the GM can just change it.
I'm saying that it's not a rule to tell the GM that they can change things. It's the complete opposite of a rule.
Actually, let's just apply this argument straight to simulacrum rather than just in the monster advancement rules.
Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs.This clearly says that the GM can change simulacrum to make it actually work. Therefore there is no reason to have any clarification on the spell. The rules already allow the GM to change the spell for whatever reason (such as the spell being broken). Hell, this resolves every rule question or conflict ever: the GM can just change it.
The GM doesn't have to change the rules to remove SLAs. It is well within the rules to do so when HD is changed.
Cool. Please show me where in the rules it says how to add/remove SLAs.
Cool. Please show me where in the rules it says how to add/remove SLAs.
Sorry, we don't have those rules. The GM is just told to "do it". It's one of those rare artifacts from earlier additions where GMs were regularly forced to make rulings.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, so you admit there are no rules for how to add/remove SLAs? But that was the original point: there are no rules---or even guidelines---for how to determine what SLAs a simulacrum has. The GM can make rulings or house rules, but that doesn't mean there are rules.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
BEHOLD!
AM DEVELOPER SEZ: SLA's of 3rd level or lower need not be removed from abilities when HD are reduced. If new HD is less than 7 it should have no SLA's of 4th level spells or higher. If new HD is less than 9 it should have no SLA's of 5th level spells of higher. Etc.
So sayeth the unwritten RAW and AM DEVELOPER.
Oh, so you admit there are no rules for how to add/remove SLAs? But that was the original point: there are no rules---or even guidelines---for how to determine what SLAs a simulacrum has. The GM can make rulings or house rules, but that doesn't mean there are rules.
The GM is called to make a ruling by the rules. That is a rule.
I don't at all care for appeals to "common sense" because this forum has very thoroughly convinced me that reasonably sane people, familiar with the rules, and experienced in running games, can have wildly different "common sense" answers to questions.
If a GM concludes that, rules-as-written, a simulacrum of an efreet clearly allows three wishes a day, there is nothing concrete to point to that shows them to be wrong. If another GM concludes that there is clearly intent that the creature be adjusted in some way, well. They might be right? No one can say, because there's nothing concrete.
Which is the point about the claim about their being no rules. Saying the GM is called to make a ruling by the rules, and that's "a rule" is equivocation at best. The question was whether there is a rule specifically about how SLAs change when reducing a creature's HD, and there is not. The general rule that says that the GM makes rules isn't relevant to that question. If you think it's relevant here, then we must also conclude that Pathfinder has "rules for technological progression up through mechanical, non-magic, space travel", and "rules for the development of a software engineering profession". Because if anyone points out there's nothing remotely related to those, you can just say "The GM is called to make a ruling by the rules. That is a rule." Woo! We have a rule in Pathfinder for determining what level bard Nicki Minaj is. You heard it here first, folks...
Anyway, me, I'd really like to see clearer guidelines at least for how Simulacrum should work. Yeah, we can rule out at least some stuff as "obviously" broken, but there's tons of things people will disagree on, and there's a lot of pitfalls. I hadn't even thought of the efreet; I'd just come up with the Army Of Simulacrums Doing Crafting.
Yes
True
That doesn't follow. There is no rule specifically telling the GM to make rulings about "technological progression up through mechanical, non-magic, space travel", and "rules for the development of a software engineering profession". The point is not valid.
I think most of us would want that. But that is not FAQ material. That would be a rules change via errata.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
BEHOLD!
AM DEVELOPER SEZ: SLA's of 3rd level or lower need not be removed from abilities when HD are reduced. If new HD is less than 7 it should have no SLA's of 4th level spells or higher. If new HD is less than 9 it should have no SLA's of 5th level spells of higher. Etc.So sayeth the unwritten RAW and AM DEVELOPER.
Will AM DEVELOPER answer how Lantern Archon's have Greater Teleport at-will if they only have 2 HD?
I don't at all care for appeals to "common sense" because this forum has very thoroughly convinced me that reasonably sane people, familiar with the rules, and experienced in running games, can have wildly different "common sense" answers to questions.
Anyway, me, I'd really like to see clearer guidelines at least for how Simulacrum should work. Yeah, we can rule out at least some stuff as "obviously" broken, but there's tons of things people will disagree on, and there's a lot of pitfalls. .
Right. Note I am not saying the "Sn0cone wish machine is wrong by the RAW, but clearly, it needs some clearer guidelines.
Will AM DEVELOPER answer how Lantern Archon's have Greater Teleport at-will if they only have 2 HD?BEHOLD!
AM DEVELOPER SEZ: SLA's of 3rd level or lower need not be removed from abilities when HD are reduced. If new HD is less than 7 it should have no SLA's of 4th level spells or higher. If new HD is less than 9 it should have no SLA's of 5th level spells of higher. Etc.So sayeth the unwritten RAW and AM DEVELOPER.
AM DEVELOPER SEZ: You have clearly forgotten to apply the unwritten RAW whereby all stat blocks in published product are commissioned by baby Jesus and are beyond reproach.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
AM DEVELOPER SEZ: You have clearly forgotten to apply the unwritten RAW whereby all stat blocks in published product are commissioned by baby Jesus and are beyond reproach.Will AM DEVELOPER answer how Lantern Archon's have Greater Teleport at-will if they only have 2 HD?BEHOLD!
AM DEVELOPER SEZ: SLA's of 3rd level or lower need not be removed from abilities when HD are reduced. If new HD is less than 7 it should have no SLA's of 4th level spells or higher. If new HD is less than 9 it should have no SLA's of 5th level spells of higher. Etc.So sayeth the unwritten RAW and AM DEVELOPER.
:) Cute and funny. Just keep it in good taste, AM DEVELOPER.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That doesn't follow. There is no rule specifically telling the GM to make rulings about "technological progression up through mechanical, non-magic, space travel",...
It does follow. The rule in question would be: If there is no rule explicitly written down, the onus is on the GM to create a rule for it and follow that rule. Taken to logical conclusion, that means that anything that doesn't have an explicit rule is a GM rule, including space travel and software engineers.
In this case, there is no explicitly written rule on adding or removing Spell-Like Abilities when increasing or decreasing Hit Dice, merely increasing Spellcasting. Spellcasting can safely be assumed to be: effects dependent on caster level when caster level is equal to Hit Dice; creature casts as a X-level class. Spell-Like Abilities break all normal spell-casting progressions.
As far as this being an FAQ as opposed to an Errata: It may call for either one.
The FAQ in this case asking: is it the intention of the Simulacrum spell that all spell-like abilities be available to the simulacrum, including spells of higher level than the original Simulacrum spell. If not, how should spell-like abilities and other casting be handled with regards to the Simulacrum spell? Both questions ask for clarification of an existing spell without necessarily re-writing the spell.
Alternatively, the Developers could choose to handle it as an Errata and re-write the Simulacrum spell to clarify it or bring it into better balance.
The GM doesn't have to change the rules to remove SLAs. It is well within the rules to do so when HD is changed.I'm saying that it's not a rule to tell the GM that they can change things. It's the complete opposite of a rule.
Actually, let's just apply this argument straight to simulacrum rather than just in the monster advancement rules.
Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs.This clearly says that the GM can change simulacrum to make it actually work. Therefore there is no reason to have any clarification on the spell. The rules already allow the GM to change the spell for whatever reason (such as the spell being broken). Hell, this resolves every rule question or conflict ever: the GM can just change it.
The simulacrum spell does very clearly say that special abilities (which would include Ex, Su, Sp, and SQ) are reduced as appropriate.
The problem is it doesn't say who does the reducing. Some players will argue they get to decide, but just as a GM should be approving characters, cohorts, ect, they should be approving the simulacrums whether they write them, or let the player submit a suggestion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
AM DEVELOPER SEZ: You have clearly forgotten to apply the unwritten RAW whereby all stat blocks in published product are commissioned by baby Jesus and are beyond reproach.Will AM DEVELOPER answer how Lantern Archon's have Greater Teleport at-will if they only have 2 HD?BEHOLD!
AM DEVELOPER SEZ: SLA's of 3rd level or lower need not be removed from abilities when HD are reduced. If new HD is less than 7 it should have no SLA's of 4th level spells or higher. If new HD is less than 9 it should have no SLA's of 5th level spells of higher. Etc.So sayeth the unwritten RAW and AM DEVELOPER.
:) Cute and funny. Just keep it in good taste, AM DEVELOPER.
To quote that great 1985 film "Clue": "Too late!"
;-)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The simulacrum spell does very clearly say that special abilities (which would include Ex, Su, Sp, and SQ) are reduced as appropriate.
The problem is it doesn't say who does the reducing. Some players will argue they get to decide, but just as a GM should be approving characters, cohorts, ect, they should be approving the simulacrums whether they write them, or let the player submit a suggestion.
To be strictly accurate, however, you wouldn't have any reason to remove a single spell-like ability from the creature. There is nothing guiding what is "appropriate ... for a creature of that level or HD" when it comes to special abilities like regeneration, spell-like abilities, or any other non-level-dependent ability. Efreeti (10 HD) have, depending on how you look at it, greater spell-like abilities than a Marid (12 HD), and greater Wish capacity than a Solar (22 HD). The only easy-to-calculate "creature of that level/HD" items are things that are actually level-dependent, such as hit points, feats, and skill points.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be strictly accurate, however, you wouldn't have any reason to remove a single spell-like ability from the creature. There is nothing guiding what is "appropriate ... for a creature of that level or HD" when it comes to special abilities like regeneration, spell-like abilities, or any other non-level-dependent ability. Efreeti (10 HD) have, depending on how you look at it, greater spell-like abilities than a Marid (12 HD), and greater Wish capacity than a Solar (22 HD). The only easy-to-calculate "creature of that level/HD" items are things that are actually level-dependent, such as hit points, feats, and skill points.The simulacrum spell does very clearly say that special abilities (which would include Ex, Su, Sp, and SQ) are reduced as appropriate.
The problem is it doesn't say who does the reducing. Some players will argue they get to decide, but just as a GM should be approving characters, cohorts, ect, they should be approving the simulacrums whether they write them, or let the player submit a suggestion.
Regardless of if its "easy-to-calculate" or not its still a decision you have to make one way or another--
I think its pretty clear that its NOT intended to be a way to get multiple 9th level spells with a single 7th level spell slot, so we can start with that at a minimum.
I could make other suggestions like--
*halving/adjusting down DR amount and removing one type i.e. 20/silver and good would become 10/silver
*halving CR and Regeneration or fast healing
*removing half the spell like abilities, from the highest to the lowest or reducing times per day and CL
But specific ideas like that are more house rules than interpretations.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regardless of if its "easy-to-calculate" or not its still a decision you have to make one way or another--
I think its pretty clear that its NOT intended to be a way to get multiple 9th level spells with a single 7th level spell slot, so we can start with that at a minimum.
I could make other suggestions like--
*halving/adjusting down DR amount and removing one type i.e. 20/silver and good would become 10/silver
*halving CR and Regeneration or fast healing
*removing half the spell like abilities, from the highest to the lowest or reducing times per day and CLBut specific ideas like that are more house rules than interpretations.
I don't disagree with you. It is a decision that has to be made, and the intention of the spell was probably not to get multiple 9th-level slots with a single 7th-level spell. Your suggestions are reasonable ones.
However, that does appear to be the purpose of the FAQ: taking what is currently in the realm of "house rule" and asking for an official clarification and interpretation of the spell in question. "House rules" are not rules for the purpose of a RAW discussion.
Regardless of if its "easy-to-calculate" or not its still a decision you have to make one way or another--
I think its pretty clear that its NOT intended to be a way to get multiple 9th level spells with a single 7th level spell slot, so we can start with that at a minimum.
I could make other suggestions like--
*halving/adjusting down DR amount and removing one type i.e. 20/silver and good would become 10/silver
*halving CR and Regeneration or fast healing
*removing half the spell like abilities, from the highest to the lowest or reducing times per day and CLBut specific ideas like that are more house rules than interpretations.
I don't disagree with you. It is a decision that has to be made, and the intention of the spell was probably not to get multiple 9th-level slots with a single 7th-level spell. Your suggestions are reasonable ones.
However, that does appear to be the purpose of the FAQ: taking what is currently in the realm of "house rule" and asking for an official clarification and interpretation of the spell in question. "House rules" are not rules for the purpose of a RAW discussion.
Right, but Rules as written are very vague and open to interpretation, hence needing some kind of official ruling. . . not for my games, but in general it deserves some variety of clarification.
|
I have never heard of it. Only theorycrafting, but it has been used time after time after time to show how badly designed Pathfinder is in general and how Broken spellcasters are in specific. Time to stop these shenanigans.OTOH, I have seen Planar Binding being abused.
Ok, so your upset about a situation that has never happened to you personally.
No, we are upset about having to stomp to the ground anyone trying to do that in our games because "I have read on the forum that it can be done".
As LazarX put it, some of us can decide what work in our games without the need of official FAQ, but it is simpler with gamers that are recent addition to your table to point them at a FAQ and say: "See, it is official, you can't do that." that being put in the "evil GM that deny my my shining toys that the forum say are allowed" position.
I have never heard of it. Only theorycrafting, but it has been used time after time after time to show how badly designed Pathfinder is in general and how Broken spellcasters are in specific. Time to stop these shenanigans.OTOH, I have seen Planar Binding being abused.
Ok, so your upset about a situation that has never happened to you personally.
No, we are upset about having to stomp to the ground anyone trying to do that in our games because "I have read on the forum that it can be done".
As LazarX put it, some of us can decide what work in our games without the need of official FAQ, but it is simpler with gamers that are recent addition to your table to point them at a FAQ and say: "See, it is official, you can't do that." that being put in the "evil GM that deny my my shining toys that the forum say are allowed" position.
Yes, and this does occur.
Yes, and this does occur.
I have never heard of it. Only theorycrafting, but it has been used time after time after time to show how badly designed Pathfinder is in general and how Broken spellcasters are in specific. Time to stop these shenanigans.OTOH, I have seen Planar Binding being abused.
Ok, so your upset about a situation that has never happened to you personally.
No, we are upset about having to stomp to the ground anyone trying to do that in our games because "I have read on the forum that it can be done".
As LazarX put it, some of us can decide what work in our games without the need of official FAQ, but it is simpler with gamers that are recent addition to your table to point them at a FAQ and say: "See, it is official, you can't do that." that being put in the "evil GM that deny my my shining toys that the forum say are allowed" position.
The GM does whatever he wants to do. As a player you just have to accept that. My GM does like following the rules, so when I point out what the rules I don't do so going, "SEE you have to run it this way.", I go "This is what the rules say, unless you change them."
My GM does have strong language for certain rule abuses
There are many many times when you just have to ask the GM how he would rule certain rules ambiguous actions.
FAQs don't fix this problem. Better wording does. Once the FAQs get long enough, they might as not exist for most groups. Hence, I understand why the devs are choosy as they are with what gets an FAQ and what gets errata.
