| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The two choices are not mutually exclusive.
The two choices are not mutually exclusive.
Agree'd.
The two choices are not mutually exclusive.Agree'd.
I also agree.
Nothing makes those options mutually exclusive.
|
Absolutely disagree with this. What I feel isn't practical is someone paying for this product, receiving it, finding there are broken parts to it and nothing being done. That is an unpractical means to treating customer service. And I am also aware of the sno-cone wish machine being not the biggest thing. There are many others. But if something as easily fixed as someone typing a simple paragraph stating some solution, (SLA don't copy onto the simulacrum or what have you) as being unpractical, for something this obviously broken, just so I, the customer, don't have to deal with it or other obviously broken things in the time I have to play this game, even if it is only one time ever...I feel that is an unreasonable statement and makes it sound like you think I should not have the right to ask for this from someone SELLING the product to me. I'm the customer, 5 minutes to type a paragraph is not unpractical or unreasonable, and would be appreciated by me and many others. Customer service friend, that's what I'm talking about. This problem and many others.
My experience with "simple paragraphs" trying to resolve complex problems (and it is complex, as it need to address all the existing creature and all the creature that will be published in the future products) is that often the "collective wisdom" of the forum will find as much or more ways to break the amended rule as there were before the fix.
I think that there is a easy solution for part of the simulacron problem: reinstating the old material requirement, a piece of the creature to be copied, but that will resolve some of the other problems of the spell, not that of copying an efreeti to get the wishes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems to me that, even if there were no creatures with wish as a spell like ability, and the only question was surrounding stuff like fireball (or other monster abilities such as Lifesense, Unnatural Aura, or Rend) there still aren't even vague and general guidelines available to GMs as to what sorts of abilities should be kept and which should be lost.
The only help is that simulacrums clearly have some magical abilities of the parent creature (as per comparison with lesser simulacrum). Having half class levels is easy to adjudicate, but there seems to be no guidance whatsoever as to which abilities to keep or not where monsters are concerned.
That's why a FAQ providing some rough guidelines seems like would be helpful. It doesn't have to get wrapped up in the issue of crusading for a rules change. The rules as they already are, are unclear and could use a FAQ.
It seems to me that, even if there were no creatures with wish as a spell like ability, and the only question was surrounding stuff like fireball (or other monster abilities such as Lifesense, Unnatural Aura, or Rend) there still aren't even vague and general guidelines available to GMs as to what sorts of abilities should be kept and which should be lost.
The only help is that simulacrums clearly have some magical abilities of the parent creature (as per comparison with lesser simulacrum). Having half class levels is easy to adjudicate, but there seems to be no guidance whatsoever as to which abilities to keep or not where monsters are concerned.
That's why a FAQ providing some rough guidelines seems like would be helpful. It doesn't have to get wrapped up in the issue of crusading for a rules change. The rules as they already are, are unclear and could use a FAQ.
I agree. The RAW just isn't that clear and it's open to abuse, even if that abuse is easily curbed by a DM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I sort of like the idea that you can have one game where simulacrums of efreet can't cast wish, and another where they can.
As long as all players and GM are on the same page, why does it need to be enforced to one side of the fence or the other?
|
I sort of like the idea that you can have one game where simulacrums of efreet can't cast wish, and another where they can.
As long as all players and GM are on the same page, why does it need to be enforced to one side of the fence or the other?
As mentioned by others up-thread, conflicts can ensue between players who expect the latter side of the fence while the GM prefers the former. Even if an FAQ is released, nothing forces the GMs to abide by it except in PFS games, and Simulacrum is a spell you can't get there anyway. But having that clarification helps show which interpretation is more in keeping with the intended power level of the spell.
As mentioned by others up-thread, conflicts can ensue between players who expect the latter side of the fence while the GM prefers the former. Even if an FAQ is released, nothing forces the GMs to abide by it except in PFS games, and Simulacrum is a spell you can't get there anyway. But having that clarification helps show which interpretation is more in keeping with the intended power level of the spell.
Yes, and it will also help new DMs, who might have a fine normal campaign going until a player shows the DM some post here claiming that you can do it, the DM allows it, and 100 wishes later....
And, if you, as DM, want the PC's to have a Sno-cone wish machine, then you could simple houserule it. A good number of DM's ignore errata in their home games.
As mentioned by others up-thread, conflicts can ensue between players who expect the latter side of the fence while the GM prefers the former. Even if an FAQ is released, nothing forces the GMs to abide by it except in PFS games, and Simulacrum is a spell you can't get there anyway. But having that clarification helps show which interpretation is more in keeping with the intended power level of the spell.I sort of like the idea that you can have one game where simulacrums of efreet can't cast wish, and another where they can.
As long as all players and GM are on the same page, why does it need to be enforced to one side of the fence or the other?
The very issue you are speaking of is the opposite of what I posited. "On the same page" means just that.
To be sure, I wouldn't oppose something like the general guidelines Coriat suggests, for depowering monsters. However, I'm very much against the idea that either the nonsensically powerful or the narrowly defined version is "right".
Honestly, even if you seal up the simulacrum nonsense, you still have the three wishes from a normal old planar bound efreet.
Planar binding is a dangerous game. It falls into a spectrum of a) you just got the spell and are low enough level that using it should give you pause or b) you're high enough level for planar binding to have almost guaranteed success but you probably also have access to scrolls of wish or can cast wish yourself.
And none of that stops someone from doing it, other than the DM. My players don't do the stupid stuff Anzyr does with simulacrum, because I won't stand for it. But if I wanted a crazy high magic world where that stuff is standard fare, I wouldn't hesitate to run it that way. I'm not claiming it's broke, I'm claiming that a wide variety of potential power levels and rulings on its power is probably it working exactly as intended.
The mind boggles to see a DM too timid to put an end to simulacrum nonsense from his player who somehow finds his big boy pants when it comes to not allowing planar binding to be abused.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Certainly. Nothing stops someone wanting to make a simulacrum of an efreet expecting access to wish either. The only thing stopping it is the GM. The thing differentiating the two is that planar binding prescribes many ways a bound creature can potentially escape or have other ramifications. Simulacrum has no such provisions and even the higher binding spells don't modify how the process works at all except for the HD of the outsider you bind. Simulacrum is simply "do this, get this" with no buts or clauses. Thus, when comparing the two, it deserves a set of guidelines for various scenarios.
It is a very reasonable stance to not touch it as a GM given the distinct lack of those same features of planar binding. To say the mind boggles is a bit of a stretch and leads me to think you're not looking at all the variables.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Certainly. Nothing stops someone wanting to make a simulacrum of an efreet expecting access to wish either. The only thing stopping it is the GM. The thing differentiating the two is that planar binding prescribes many ways a bound creature can potentially escape or have other ramifications. Simulacrum has no such provisions and even the higher binding spells don't modify how the process works at all except for the HD of the outsider you bind. Simulacrum is simply "do this, get this" with no buts or clauses. Thus, when comparing the two, it deserves a set of guidelines for various scenarios.
Right. But even Planar Binding has issues.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well Buri, perhaps I'm not looking at the variables. I am not a DM who has an issue with either planar binding or simulacrum. I expect them to be useful weapons in a mage's arsenal for their level, and I do not expect them to be game breaking nonsense.
I would be very surprised to find a DM who was able to handle planar binding, yet found simulacrum too much to handle.
None of that should be taken as that I disagree with wanting the set of guidelines that Coriat suggests, simply some suggestions as to what legitimately can be done when you cut a monster's HD in half. I do think they would be helpful; I don't want to see them reduce the possibilities to run the game focused or ridiculously, as one wishes.
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
** spoiler omitted **
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.
The advancing rules stop the problem... then start it back up again with little change.
Instead of making a Simulacrum of an Efreeti or a Succubus, you instead make an advanced (doubled hit die) Efreeti (20 HD) or a Succubus (16 HD) for just double the (low at that level anyways, especially for an alchemist) cost.
All this stops is simulacrums of naturally high hit die creatures, but none of them are nearly as popular as those two.
simulacrum can only make copies of creatures that exist.
You require GM fiat to do this trick. I don't see why a GM would fiat such creature and at the same time not just allow simulacrum normal efreeti have wish.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Prove that a 20 HD Efreet doesn't exist.
Here's the thing about creatures, it's entirely possible such things actually do exist. One of the biggest flaws of Simulacrum is that Paizo removed the clause where you needed to own a piece of the creature copied.
Other than a GM saying no, there is nothing stopping a wizard from making a copy of a 20th level Fighter, Advanced Template, Giant Template, Fey Creature Template, Half-Fiend Template, Vampire Kobold.
Theoretically, such a creature exists, so therefore, Pathfinder Simulacrum can make a copy of it.
|
|
One that not many people have talked about is the simulacrum-Tarrasque mount. It's only a 15HD, 282 HP monstrosity with Regen 40 and a host of defensive abilities.
For what it's worth, nobody has mentioned a GM who puts their foot down with Planar Binding and not with Simulacrum. As mentioned, Planar Binding has built-in loopholes, since the creature is not under absolute control.
And Kain, perhaps it's worth looking at the variables. Yes, assuming that all at the table agree to it, then there's no reason for a ruling. There's also no reason for an FAQ of any houserule. The problems stem, as we've all been saying, from when people are not on the same page ahead of time. And just because it's never happened at your table doesn't mean it hasn't happened at others. I had a player who was intending to use it before I put the kibosh on it. Newer player, had been reading the boards looking for ways to take control of, in essence, everything, and found several.
@Marthkus: It's the exact same GM fiat that you would need to assume that a half-HD Efreeti wouldn't have the Wish SLA, so null argument, perhaps?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It occurs to me, since Pathfinder is 'backwards compatible' one could make a Simulacrum of Pun-Pun...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It occurs to me, since Pathfinder is 'backwards compatible' one could make a Simulacrum of Pun-Pun...
... Great Scott!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It occurs to me, since Pathfinder is 'backwards compatible' one could make a Simulacrum of Pun-Pun...
Hence what I said early on this thread:
If you like the kobold that can destroy the world with a thought or endless wishes from an icy replica of an outsider, then go for it.
One that not many people have talked about is the simulacrum-Tarrasque mount. It's only a 15HD, 282 HP monstrosity with Regen 40 and a host of defensive abilities.
For what it's worth, nobody has mentioned a GM who puts their foot down with Planar Binding and not with Simulacrum. As mentioned, Planar Binding has built-in loopholes, since the creature is not under absolute control.
And Kain, perhaps it's worth looking at the variables. Yes, assuming that all at the table agree to it, then there's no reason for a ruling. There's also no reason for an FAQ of any houserule. The problems stem, as we've all been saying, from when people are not on the same page ahead of time. And just because it's never happened at your table doesn't mean it hasn't happened at others. I had a player who was intending to use it before I put the kibosh on it. Newer player, had been reading the boards looking for ways to take control of, in essence, everything, and found several.
Indeed, and "Newer player, had been reading the boards looking for ways " is one of the reasons I started this thread. It's odd, to when you think of it- things like Orc bloodline would likely almost never be played without Optimizers finding them in obscure guides and then posting them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, but saying "Sometimes people aren't on the same page" is not a legitimate argument. In any game where people don't have the same concept of the rules, you will run into problems.
Case in point, some kids were playing checkers in a classroom the other day. They were playing that kings could not only move backwards, but they could move as far as they wanted, jump anything in their path as long as there was a space to land on, and some other craziness. I was beat, under those rules, because I made moves that I would have never made if I knew they were using kings in that fashion.
That's not the same thing as a bad rule that needs fixing. In MMA, you used to be able to use groin shots and eye gouges. Now you can't. That was a bad rule and was fixed.
Ok, but saying "Sometimes people aren't on the same page" is not a legitimate argument. In any game where people don't have the same concept of the rules, you will run into problems.
Case in point, some kids were playing checkers in a classroom the other day. They were playing that kings could not only move backwards, but they could move as far as they wanted, jump anything in their path as long as there was a space to land on, and some other craziness. I was beat, under those rules, because I made moves that I would have never made if I knew they were using kings in that fashion.
Yesbut- when those kids go to a real checkers game, and try and, and someone sez they can't, that's not the rules, will they get upset as they have always played that way?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, but saying "Sometimes people aren't on the same page" is not a legitimate argument.
Sure it is. Proper context is crucial to any debate. If someone can highlight that opponents are using different contexts then the debate is moot. I'll point out many political debates where nothing of real substance is worked through but is merely a barrage of accusation, riposte, and retort that looks good. Election periods in the US are notorious for these kinds of debates. The debates that stay on point and actually try to get something done are likely to come from organized forums like a congressional subcommittee.
The context here is a spell that easily says you very likely can get wish consistently far lower than you could cast it yourself and for far cheaper in a way that gains you further free castings. Some guidelines on the scope of what that spell was meant to be used for would be very beneficial. It's not a new rule. It's a clarification on how the current rules work. Thus, an FAQ and not errata.
Ok, but saying "Sometimes people aren't on the same page" is not a legitimate argument.Sure it is. Proper context is crucial to any debate. If someone can highlight that opponents are using different contexts then the debate is moot. I'll point out many political debates where nothing of real substance is worked through but is merely a barrage of accusation, riposte, and retort that looks good. Election periods in the US are notorious for these kinds of debates. The debates that stay on point and actually try to get something done are likely to come from organized forums like a congressional subcommittee.
The context here is a spell that easily says you very likely can get wish consistently far lower than you could cast it yourself and for far cheaper in a way that gains you further free castings. Some guidelines on the scope of what that spell was meant to be used for would be very beneficial. It's not a new rule. It's a clarification on how the current rules work. Thus, an FAQ and not errata.
I agree, except for the "easily says" part, but still, the wording is bad.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right. And I see three possible situations.
Everyone is on the same page in the group that you cannot use simulacrum/planar binding/whatever to get free or low cost wishes. (No problem.)
Everyone is on the same page in the group that you can use simulacrum/planar binding/whatever to get free or low cost wishes. (No Problem)
Some people expect you cannot use the spell to abuse the rules. Some people expect you can use the spell to abuse the rules. (Problem)
This is literally only a problem if there are differing expectations.
Right. And I see three possible situations.
Everyone is on the same page in the group that you cannot use simulacrum/planar binding/whatever to get free or low cost wishes. (No problem.)
Everyone is on the same page in the group that you can use simulacrum/planar binding/whatever to get free or low cost wishes. (No Problem)
Some people expect you cannot use the spell to abuse the rules. Some people expect you can use the spell to abuse the rules. (Problem)
This is literally only a problem if there are differing expectations.
More worrisome is that some will see it as a rules abuse and others will not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Simulacrum and awaken both need to be rewritten to include easily understood templates. I think that would solve absolutely everything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
James has gone over this spell before in great depth (in no small part due to my own prodding). You can find a great many clarifications in this simulacrum thread here.
For developer posts specifically, click here and here.
Well if we're asking questions about simulacrum anyway:
1. What creature type is a Simulacrum? Does it count as the same type as the creature copied, with all attendant qualities and abilities of the type? Does it have any/all of the same templates? Like, is a Simulacrum of a Vampire still a full (albeit, weaker) Vampire?
2. Is there any way to repair damage to a Simulacrum other than the process mentioned in the spell? Or is that process an additional method of repair and regular healing spells and abilities will totally work? What if the creature has regeneration or fast healing inherently?
3. If you make a Simulacrum of a creature with a Permanent spell effect on it, Inherent Bonuses, or something similar, does the Simulacrum have those enhancements?
4. What does "partially real and formed from ice or snow" mean in the context of the game? Can you disbelieve a Simulacrum? What happens if you do? Are Simulacrums cold to the touch or susceptible to fire?
5. If you make a Simulacrum of a dragon, do you get a younger dragon?
1. Simulacrums are NOT constructs. This has been explicitly stated by game developers. They keep their base creature's type and features (such as needing to eat, sleep, and breathe--or not). The only creature type you can't emulate with simulacrum is the incorporeal subtype, since a sim is initially made up of snow and ice (which is a physical substance).
2. There's no reason to believe that regeneration and fast healing wouldn't work on a sim with such traits.
3. I'm inclined to say no, unless the effect was instantaneous.
4. A sim is in every way a real living creature, except for the exceptions explicitly described in the spell (namely that it is always loyal, and cannot be healed normally).
5. You get a dragon with the same age as the base dragon.
I will say in the case of this spell I wish some major revisions would be considered regarding what can be created. The special abilities is open to abuse when you consider things like Genies can grant wishes.
Even a line about maximum spell level equivalent would fix most of the issues and keep the flavor of the spell.
I know it is a carry over from 3.5, but as written it is begging for abuse.
Keeping it from being abused is what a good GM does.
A bad GM won't, but then again, a bad GM's game is going to have more problems than abused simulacrum spells.
Could it benefit from rewriting? Certainly. Does it need it to function in game? Nah.
I wouldn't hold you breath on those clarifications guys. *FAQ'd anyways*
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
And see, even tho I have been called (not entirely without justification) a “Paizo fanboy” here on the boards, I think JJ is wrong. Yes, this is an issue which any experienced & sane DM will say “NO” on. But, I’ll point out that several of our more “popular” posters here talk about such things as they are everyday happenings.
However, not every DM is ‘experienced”. What’s a newb DM to do when shown a poorly written rule and a lot of posts on the Official Paizo website saying that yeah, it’s OK? It’s not just a “bad DM” James. It could be new DMs . Don’t fix this for the bad DM, fix it for the new DMs.
I suspect this is why this hasn't been fixed. But- they should anyway.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd go a step further and say it helps new players as well. When they read something in the Core rules that clearly says they can do "X," and the DM turns around and says, "No; that's cheesy!", but at the same time lets them do "Y," it sends a mixed message, suggesting that the hobby consists of an arbitrary "mother-may-I" game with the DM, rather than an adventure game with clear-cut guidelines.
Clarifying rules issues like these helps new players and new DMs, and can only help encourage new people to stick with the hobby. Refusing to do so makes new players confused, leads new DMs to think they don't have the tools they need to do their job, and can discourage these new groups from playing.
Good point, Kirth.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Substitute that with "DM May I" and I have absolutely no problem with that perception. That's exactly as it should be.
Thanks for telling everyone else what they should think and how they should play.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It IS the DM's game
False.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's everyone's game, but LazarX is not wrong about the GM's role within it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Substitute that with "DM May I" and I have absolutely no problem with that perception. That's exactly as it should be.Thanks for telling everyone else what they should think and how they should play.
I'm just reminding them that the end of the day when the dust settles, It IS the DM's game, whose job IS to rule on corner cases of magic like this. When it comes down to the game it should be the DM who has the final say, not the Paizo messageboards, not even the Paizo developers themselves.
Do you really want to set up the boards as an appeal process for things that players don't like?
I'd like to see the Board come to my house and force me to change my rulings.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
200!