Greater Alchemical Simulacrum Casting Time

[Arcane Thesis]

Hello,

I'm using an alchemist trying to make Greater Alchemical Simulacrums. My GM says that because it works like the simulacrum spell, that means it has a 12 hour casting time on top of a 24 hour grow time.

I argued that because it's a supernatural ability it cannot have a casting time, because it is not a spell, and that the 24 hour grow time is clearly intended to replace the 12 hour casting time of the original spell.

Since a supernatural ability cannot provoke on use, it can't be considered to be 'cast', nor can it be dispelled or counterspelled.

He insists that because it says 'like the simulacrum spell' everything is included, including a casting time.

I would really appreciate some input, particularly from a Paizo employee.

[Garbage-Tier Waifu]

Unless otherwise stated, even when replicating spells, supernatural abilities are a standard action. I believe you are right.

[Halek]

That being said your dm can continue saying no and ignore rules while screeching about how op it is for you to have it.

He probably hasnt realized that a minute out of combat is normally as good as a day for spellcasters.

[Arcane Thesis]

Garbage-Tier Waifu wrote:

Unless otherwise stated, even when replicating spells, supernatural abilities are a standard action. I believe you are right.

He believes that the bit saying 'this works like the simulacrum spell, except' is exhaustive, and since it doesn't say it doesn't include a casting time, it does.

I believe that it doesn't include that there because it forbids it in general, such as the section you quoted saying it's otherwise a standard action. I mentioned the monk's abundant step that is a move action, not the normal casting time of a standard, or the sanctified rogue's divine epiphany is a standard, not a minute. However, since it's not on the exception list of greater alchemical simulacrum, he's otherwise requiring it to take a total of 36 hours to finish.

[Garbage-Tier Waifu]

You should probably explain that when something is stated as otherwise, it's because it is the exception of the rule. Stating it works like the spell simply saves having to reprint the entire spell for the sake of the ability.

[Arcane Thesis]

Garbage-Tier Waifu wrote:

You should probably explain that when something is stated as otherwise, it's because it is the exception of the rule. Stating it works like the spell simply saves having to reprint the entire spell for the sake of the ability.

You're right, but I'd still need to find something to show that 'it being a standard except when listed otherwise' doesn't include the casting time of the spell. It says 'in the ability', I know, and the description does not say anything about activation times, so it should be a standard action, but I know that won't sway him.

I don't think anything short of a Paizo employee commenting will change this, unfortunately.

[Matthew Downie]

The majority of people seem to think think that it would be a Standard action. Discussion.

There's no official confirmation, though.