Worst house rules you've seen? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Doctor Awkward

2018-11-04, 07:43 PM

So, my question is, what kind of crazy, ridiculous things have y'all seen as house rules? EDIT: bonus points if they didn't realize that wasn't RAW, but that type of misunderstanding is not required for this thread.

By far the worst I've seen was a friend of a friend who styled himself a "retro" D&D gamer that had been playing nearly since the start of 2nd edition. I myself started in the end of 2e run in the 90's, so I jumped at the chance to do some old school gaming.

I was playing an anti-paladin in a mostly evil game and as we were trekking through this ancient crypt the thief was out in front looking for traps. I cast detect magic in order to scout for any magical effects or traps ahead of us, to which the DM sucked in a breath and shook his head a little.

About a minute later we were ambushed by some pretty nasty crypt-dwellers who spotted us easily despite our stealth. I was then informed that the reason for this was because I had cast detect magic, which caused all magical effects and items in the radius to glow. Like a torch. For everyone to see.

I was a little flabbergasted and replied, "Yeah, but only for the caster." The DM responded, "No, it's for everyone. That's what the spell says."

"Can I take a look?" I asked. "Not during game." he answered. Yep. That was how he ran his games, and apparently had always run his games.

It ended up not working out very well though, since much later on when we were attempting to infiltrate a castle we were ambushed in the adjacent woods and had several archers pelting at us from hiding spots in the trees. The DM, knowing I didn't have any ranged weapons, was prepared to skip my turn in the initiative when I said to him, "No I'd like to cast a spell."

"Oh, really? Which one?" he asked.
"Detect Magic."
"Huh?"
"Well you said that it causes magic items in the radius to glow. So if any of these guys attacking us have any magic items, we'll know where they are."

Turns out they all had magic bows. He kind of sat there in silence for a moment contemplating what had just happened, while the rest of the party laughed uproariously. The game ended just a session or two later for some reason, when I started really asking about looking up the description for detect magic.

JNAProductions

2018-11-04, 07:49 PM

To be fair, having LA give Hit Dice isn't an awful idea.

Now, the balance of LA is still borked as all hell, but it'd make it more palatable. (But then you have stuff where the LA is actually WORTH IT, which is now even better... Balance just be whack all over the place.)

Malimar

2018-11-04, 08:12 PM

inb4 "critical fumbles"

Level Adjustment gives you Racial Hit Dice (so, if half-celestial has LA+4, you get 4 "free" Outsider HD).
To be fair, having LA give Hit Dice isn't an awful idea.

Now, the balance of LA is still borked as all hell, but it'd make it more palatable. (But then you have stuff where the LA is actually WORTH IT, which is now even better... Balance just be whack all over the place.)
Yeah, this is a pretty reasonable house rule I've considered myself. (LA buyoff is better, but if you're not going to allow that then this is a decent substitute.)

Tvtyrant

2018-11-04, 08:18 PM

King of Nowhere

2018-11-04, 08:19 PM

One of my first sessions, we were all new.
We were exploring a crypt which we knew belonged to an evil cult, and I was a cleric

"I cast detect evil"
"there's lots of evil around"

Was quite the waste of a spell.

Ruethgar

2018-11-04, 08:42 PM

I have you all beat, I had a DM houserule that drowning someone didn’t heal them back up to 0 health. I mean wtf right?

But in all seriousness, had a DM houserule that a whole slew of normal items out of the DMG only worked for clerics, of which we only had one... his DMNPC. Who had to overshadow everyone(without optimizing or even trying to pick decent spells). So we were all three levels behind on WBL while he was 5 ahead. Then he threw a hissy fit when I researched and found ways around being dependent on WBL and started being better than his cleric because I had to be able to hold my own against things of CR effectively above my ECL.

Quertus

2018-11-04, 09:02 PM

long time ago, that's how I thought it worked, lol

the worst ive seen, is no matter what you do to a kinder, the kinder wins

I mean, it's almost house ruling to claim that Kender could have survived the Purge so many tables have implemented.

By far the worst I've seen was a friend of a friend who styled himself a "retro" D&D gamer that had been playing nearly since the start of 2nd edition. I myself started in the end of 2e run in the 90's, so I jumped at the chance to do some old school gaming.

I was playing an anti-paladin in a mostly evil game and as we were trekking through this ancient crypt the thief was out in front looking for traps. I cast detect magic in order to scout for any magical effects or traps ahead of us, to which the DM sucked in a breath and shook his head a little.

About a minute later we were ambushed by some pretty nasty crypt-dwellers who spotted us easily despite our stealth. I was then informed that the reason for this was because I had cast detect magic, which caused all magical effects and items in the radius to glow. Like a torch. For everyone to see.

I was a little flabbergasted and replied, "Yeah, but only for the caster." The DM responded, "No, it's for everyone. That's what the spell says."

"Can I take a look?" I asked. "Not during game." he answered. Yep. That was how he ran his games, and apparently had always run his games.

It ended up not working out very well though, since much later on when we were attempting to infiltrate a castle we were ambushed in the adjacent woods and had several archers pelting at us from hiding spots in the trees. The DM, knowing I didn't have any ranged weapons, was prepared to skip my turn in the initiative when I said to him, "No I'd like to cast a spell."

"Oh, really? Which one?" he asked.
"Detect Magic."
"Huh?"
"Well you said that it causes magic items in the radius to glow. So if any of these guys attacking us have any magic items, we'll know where they are."

Turns out they all had magic bows. He kind of sat there in silence for a moment contemplating what had just happened, while the rest of the party laughed uproariously. The game ended just a session or two later for some reason, when I started really asking about looking up the description for detect magic.

Kudos on the tactics. I've rarely seen that used, despite the fact that that incorrect interpretation of Detect Magic was so common at 2e tables, TSR published an alternate spell that actually did what people thought Detect Magic did.

inb4 "critical fumbles"

Point. I should fix the OP to indicate that that is outside the scope of what I'm after.

Another thread has got me thinking about just how difficult it would be to write character creation software that would allow an end user - not a programmer - to successfully created a character under any given table's house rules.

So, technically, I'm primarily interested in rules that could impact the character sheet. Oops.

-----

Oh, and I agree that racial HD during LA is not the worst idea ever.

CIDE

2018-11-04, 09:51 PM

By far the worst I've seen was a friend of a friend who styled himself a "retro" D&D gamer that had been playing nearly since the start of 2nd edition. I myself started in the end of 2e run in the 90's, so I jumped at the chance to do some old school gaming.

I was playing an anti-paladin in a mostly evil game and as we were trekking through this ancient crypt the thief was out in front looking for traps. I cast detect magic in order to scout for any magical effects or traps ahead of us, to which the DM sucked in a breath and shook his head a little.

About a minute later we were ambushed by some pretty nasty crypt-dwellers who spotted us easily despite our stealth. I was then informed that the reason for this was because I had cast detect magic, which caused all magical effects and items in the radius to glow. Like a torch. For everyone to see.

I was a little flabbergasted and replied, "Yeah, but only for the caster." The DM responded, "No, it's for everyone. That's what the spell says."

"Can I take a look?" I asked. "Not during game." he answered. Yep. That was how he ran his games, and apparently had always run his games.

It ended up not working out very well though, since much later on when we were attempting to infiltrate a castle we were ambushed in the adjacent woods and had several archers pelting at us from hiding spots in the trees. The DM, knowing I didn't have any ranged weapons, was prepared to skip my turn in the initiative when I said to him, "No I'd like to cast a spell."

"Oh, really? Which one?" he asked.
"Detect Magic."
"Huh?"
"Well you said that it causes magic items in the radius to glow. So if any of these guys attacking us have any magic items, we'll know where they are."

Turns out they all had magic bows. He kind of sat there in silence for a moment contemplating what had just happened, while the rest of the party laughed uproariously. The game ended just a session or two later for some reason, when I started really asking about looking up the description for detect magic.

The fact that he was prepared to simply skip your turn at all already throws up red flags for me. Whether the DM thinks you can do anything or not doesn't matter and he should've just asked "Is there anything X is going to do?".

Also... AFB but I'm pretty sure that's not how detect magic works.

I have to ask too; Did he have problems with hand written notes about spells or things like that in play with the character sheet? Because any half-way intelligent character will know how his/her spells work and having a copy of the spell description simply works as a representation of the character's in-character knowledge. I personally have several pages of added stuff with my character sheets that includes items, spells, etc. EVERYTHING for the character so I don't even need to have a book there until a rules debate comes up or a shopping spree happens.

To be fair, having LA give Hit Dice isn't an awful idea.

Now, the balance of LA is still borked as all hell, but it'd make it more palatable. (But then you have stuff where the LA is actually WORTH IT, which is now even better... Balance just be whack all over the place.)

I think the idea was that htey were "free" hd. As in posing no penalty to the character's progression or ecl.

My issue is less of a houserule and more of a playstyle. A DM I played with felt that Monks were broken but in the sense that they were over powered. So, he was super strict on people playing monks and how they were built and if someone else in the party out performed a monk he accused them of doing something wrong because you just can't beat a monk.

flappeercraft

2018-11-04, 09:53 PM

Not mine but heard of this from a friend. He played a 3.5 game where the DM thought that fighters were too OP and removed their bonus feats and in return changed their HD to d12 to compensate.

JNAProductions

2018-11-04, 09:54 PM

I think the idea was that htey were "free" hd. As in posing no penalty to the character's progression or ecl.

My issue is less of a houserule and more of a playstyle. A DM I played with felt that Monks were broken but in the sense that they were over powered. So, he was super strict on people playing monks and how they were built and if someone else in the party out performed a monk he accused them of doing something wrong because you just can't beat a monk.

To the first bit I have quoted: I got the impression that they thought LA came with hit dice, but the hit dice counted towards levels as normal. So a 4 HD, +2 LA monster would have 6 HD and be ECL 6.

If what was meant was that a 4 HD, +2 LA monster would have 6 HD and be ECL 4... Then I am thoroughly impressed. I did not know people could be that solidly wrong. :P

To the second bit... That's just funny. Stupid-but funny.

Not mine but heard of this from a friend. He played a 3.5 game where the DM thought that fighters were too OP and removed their bonus feats and in return changed their HD to d12 to compensate.

So... Take away 11 feats, give 1? (Improved Toughness is 1 HP less than a hit die upgrade, if you maximize at level 1.)

That's some malarky.

flappeercraft

2018-11-04, 10:10 PM

So... Take away 11 feats, give 1? (Improved Toughness is 1 HP less than a hit die upgrade, if you maximize at level 1.)

That's some malarky.

Yeah, I was offered to join but it was so BS with that houserule that I immediately noticed the DM had no concept of balance and likely no experience with the game so I didn't bother joining. My friend joined and regretted it, left just after session 1.

Florian

2018-11-04, 10:30 PM

Good question. If I had to pick one as the worst, it´s prolly this one: Replacing the static 10+mod formula with a d20+mod roll. Yes, that makes to hit vs. AC or spell save DC vs. saving throw into comparative rolls and the game extremely swingy.

Doctor Awkward

2018-11-04, 11:40 PM

The fact that he was prepared to simply skip your turn at all already throws up red flags for me. Whether the DM thinks you can do anything or not doesn't matter and he should've just asked "Is there anything X is going to do?".

Also... AFB but I'm pretty sure that's not how detect magic works.

I have to ask too; Did he have problems with hand written notes about spells or things like that in play with the character sheet? Because any half-way intelligent character will know how his/her spells work and having a copy of the spell description simply works as a representation of the character's in-character knowledge. I personally have several pages of added stuff with my character sheets that includes items, spells, etc. EVERYTHING for the character so I don't even need to have a book there until a rules debate comes up or a shopping spree happens.

Yeah it was a red flag. It was pretty much confirmed in a separate incident in a different game he ran after which I said to our mutual friend that I'm never playing in a game he runs again.

The book thing was just a standing rule he had: no open books during the game. That didn't bother me so much. I've been in many games where DM's have had issues with players literally stopping the game to argue a rule with the DM. For him, it was essentially a way of enforcing the, "We are only discussing the rules before and after the session" rule. He was fine with notes and copies of spell text. I just didn't happen to have the text of detect magic copied at the time.

And yeah, that was definitely not how detect magic worked, and I knew that which is why I wanted to look it up, because that stunt almost got our thief killed in the ambush.

Bullet06320

2018-11-05, 04:14 AM

I have to ask too; Did he have problems with hand written notes about spells or things like that in play with the character sheet? Because any half-way intelligent character will know how his/her spells work and having a copy of the spell description simply works as a representation of the character's in-character knowledge. I personally have several pages of added stuff with my character sheets that includes items, spells, etc. EVERYTHING for the character so I don't even need to have a book there until a rules debate comes up or a shopping spree happens.

I do this, I put book and page number next to everything I use, in case a rules question comes up, easy to reference the original source
I also use flash cards for summoned critters

Awakeninfinity

2018-11-05, 06:34 AM

A friend of mine told me of a time another friend ran a game were level adjustment and metamagic spell level adjustment didn't exist, needless to say the game lasted for about a session.

DrMotives

2018-11-05, 09:06 AM

Worst one I saw at a table was the DM thought ability scores shouldn't be generated with d6s for some reason, so we all rolled a d20. Then he said scores lower than 10 were raised to a 10, but scores above 15 "were unfair" and brought down to a 15. He was astounded that the character I rolled wound up with all 15s, which was unlikely but not impossible. Also, not very fun to play because it was there was no strength and weaknesses to play off of.

Elkad

2018-11-05, 09:53 AM

ngilop

2018-11-05, 10:33 AM

Wizards and Sorcerers are weak so to make up for their d4 HD they have double spell slots.

Needlessly to say, I said a definite 'Nope' and went to find another game.

ericgrau

2018-11-05, 10:39 AM

For house rules that the group didn't think were house rules:

TWF allows an extra attack on a single attack. This one wasn't terrible honestly. For our optimization level it made TWF really strong. The only reason we didn't have more TWFers was because not everyone knew. So if only it was a house rule it could have been stated as such and more players could try it.
Similarly the group once asked the DM for a formal list of house rules. He gave a one page joke list mostly involving how our characters could arrive at untimely deaths and how actually obtaining house rule information from him wasn't possible. He is a bastard but it was fun.
Sorcerers can learn any spell from any class list by witnessing/finding it (upon next level up). I've seen this argued in forums sometimes too, but no way that's what the PHB means. It's not a terrible buff but unlike TWF I think the style is way off.
If you charge you don't provoke an attack of opportunity. Likewise not OP but a total mess of fun strategy.
If a rogue tumbles through an opponent the opponent is flat-footed against his next attack. This might even be a real rule from some splat, or so he claimed, but I still think it's dumb.
Magic item creation guidelines are rules to be exploited. This quickly got banned but not before we got a bunch of underpriced items. Existing items weren't taken away. Even after banning I don't think the DM knew what he did wasn't actually legal. This was the bastard DM and the player who exploited the rules left because his character died (a frequent occurrence for everyone) and he whined.
Nat 1s and 20s on skill checks. Pretty common but still irks me. Along with excessive rerolls until you fail for ongoing checks, and likewise rarely being allowed to take a 10 in such a situation. When there is high drawbacks to failure or and low benefit to success, risk of failure even on basic checks only makes you not want to attempt skill checks in the first place.

Wizards and Sorcerers are weak so to make up for their d4 HD they have double spell slots.

Needlessly to say, I said a definite 'Nope' and went to find another game.
In 99% of games I don't buy the manrta that "Wizards are gods", but lol this is crazy. If they didn't have a long list of house rules and I didn't have many other options I might still give the game a shot and play a wizard. Or a sorcerer if spells known are doubled. No cheese, no high OP, just play well with the house rule. Including getting a decent con and false life-ing up my HP like I often do. Then say after 2-3 sessions "Ok that was fun but nerf me now please". Buuut I'm betting if they had this house rule there were probably several other bad written and/or unwritten house rules. I would try to look elsewhere if possible.

Bronk

2018-11-05, 10:58 AM

The worst one I have ever implemented was to just make all casters spontaneous off of their entire list. Theoretically it was nonsense that breaks the game, but the casters in the party were stoners who wouldn't write out their daily list no matter what.

I had a DM who had that as an official houserule as well, along with 'any spell from an official source is fine'. It happened that I was playing a cleric, and I believe the DM was extremely surprised by how many spells there are in 3.5.

Wizards and Sorcerers are weak so to make up for their d4 HD they have double spell slots.

Needlessly to say, I said a definite 'Nope' and went to find another game.

I could have used that in AD&D, where I once played a wizard with only one spell per day total. One single magic missile per day was not nearly enough to be useful!

Sto

2018-11-05, 11:55 AM

I had a DM use a spelling system for sorcerer that was quite psionic in nature... Except you could only cast a number of spells per level as you would have had spell slots of that level. So it was exactly the same but not? I was really confused

The Magister

2018-11-05, 11:56 AM

I joined a session at a gaming shop on a whim after I saw a guy I knew at a table. Big mistake. No level adjustment, all bonuses stacked, you don't fail on a nat 1, you can move into solid matter as far as you want instead of 5' when you're incorporeal, no damage cap on spells and feats every three levels for each class you possess.

Oh, and this was only for the PCs. We were steamrolling over everything in sight, and I was the only one who saw a problem with this. Don't even get me started on how they reacted when I brought up the rules on cover, concealment and grenade-like weapons...

King of Nowhere

2018-11-05, 12:14 PM

OgresAreCute

2018-11-05, 12:19 PM

Wouldn't it have been easier to roll 1d6 + 9? :smallconfused:

Now now, let's not bring reason or critical thinking into this.

Climowitz

2018-11-05, 01:28 PM

AoO are generated when you enter a threatened space instead of leaving it. Worst part was that it was used on my first game ever so when i dmed my first game i implemented same rule. Shame on me.

Kayblis

2018-11-05, 01:30 PM

Wouldn't it have been easier to roll 1d6 + 9? :smallconfused:

There's a big problem with doing this: people will have a decent spread of stats. Under the houserule stated, 50% of all stats are 10s, over a quarter are 15s and you may possibly have a stat that is not 10 or 15 if you rolled into a narrow gap of 4 values(11~14, 5% chance each). This makes sure the game has lots of uninteresting stats with a +0 modifier and that all stats you care about are exactly 15. Might as well say "use 10/10/10/13/15/15 for all characters".

Darth Ultron

2018-11-05, 02:10 PM

A_S

2018-11-05, 02:31 PM

If a rogue tumbles through an opponent the opponent is flat-footed against his next attack. This might even be a real rule from some splat, or so he claimed, but I still think it's dumb.
This is what the Acrobatic Backstab skill trick from Complete Scoundrel does. Skill tricks are 1/combat, though, not sure if that restriction was being used in your game.

Since it's only one attack (not all your attacks in a round), it's not especially strong. Could be silly if it's useable at-will though.

Tvtyrant

2018-11-05, 02:48 PM

I had a DM who had that as an official houserule as well, along with 'any spell from an official source is fine'. It happened that I was playing a cleric, and I believe the DM was extremely surprised by how many spells there are in 3.5.

If they had been prone to abuse I would have either taken it away or said you can't search for spells, they have to be pre-written down and ready to go.

But in actuality they basically just cast cure spells and tossed pots of alchemist's fire. All of the heavy lifting was done by other members of the group.

thorr-kan

2018-11-05, 02:50 PM

1st edition DMG had an xp table in the back for monsters.
It had entries like "1300xp+7/hp"

So a 50hp monster would be worth 1300+(50*7)=1650xp

We misinterpreted that inadvertently, and awarded 1300xp, plus 7 permanent hitpoints to the character that got the deathblow.
By 10th level we had thousands of HP.
That's the first time I've heard about 1ED characters having *too many* hit points...

But I can totally see why you interpreted the table that way!

Arbane

2018-11-05, 03:25 PM

6.Psionics and magic don't have any effect on each other like they don't exist to each each other. Like a magic lightning bolt will utterly ignore a psionic shield.

Pretty sure that one was an official option for psionics.

OgresAreCute

2018-11-05, 03:33 PM

Pretty sure that one was an official option for psionics.

I don't think it's a transparency thing, more like magic attacks ignore AC gained from psionic powers and vice versa.

exelsisxax

2018-11-05, 03:40 PM

Pretty sure that one was an official option for psionics.

Spells ignoring power resistance and vice versa was a transparency option. Powers ignoring the bonus from cat's grace is not official in any way.

Arbane

2018-11-05, 04:21 PM

I don't think it's a transparency thing, more like magic attacks ignore AC gained from psionic powers and vice versa.

Ah, yeah. That could be a problem.

ericgrau

2018-11-05, 05:04 PM

This is what the Acrobatic Backstab skill trick from Complete Scoundrel does. Skill tricks are 1/combat, though, not sure if that restriction was being used in your game.

Since it's only one attack (not all your attacks in a round), it's not especially strong. Could be silly if it's useable at-will though.

Thanks, I figured it was some kind of misreading. He was doing this every round he couldn't flank which did get silly yes.

Bronk

2018-11-05, 06:00 PM

AoO are generated when you enter a threatened space instead of leaving it. Worst part was that it was used on my first game ever so when i dmed my first game i implemented same rule. Shame on me.

I've come across that too. It makes for a very 'come at me bro' game.

Like:
1.A spell that is permanent can be cast casting over and over again (up to the spell level) is actually permanent and can't be dispelled.
2.It doesn't matter how far above (by flight) or below (by burrowing) you are relative to an enemy; if you enter their "square", it provokes an AoO.
3.If a range attack misses someone engaged in melee, it hits whoever they were meleeing.
4.If two very attractive people come across one another, they must do opposed Charisma checks. The one who loses the check falls madly in love with the other.
5.Free Eschew Materials and Rapid Metamagic for spontaneous casters.
6.Psionics and magic don't have any effect on each other like they don't exist to each each other. Like a magic lightning bolt will utterly ignore a psionic shield.

1 sounds like it came out of nowhere, and 2 and 6 don't make any sense. I've seen 3 waaaay too often, usually along with critical fumbles and ones failing on a skill check. 4 sounds creepy.

Five I do all the time though. As a DM, those aspects can be annoying yet easy to just decide never to have to deal with. Especially when trying not to overwhelm newbies... you start without them, then just never add them back in.

Deadline

2018-11-05, 06:59 PM

I've seen 3 waaaay too often, usually along with critical fumbles and ones failing on a skill check.

I'm pretty certain there's a variant rule that does something like 3. If I recall, it says that if you miss an opponent by the amount (or less) than the cover bonus provided, you strike the cover instead. I can't for the life of me recall where I saw it though.

Darth Ultron

2018-11-05, 08:31 PM

Pretty sure that one was an official option for psionics.

I'm not an expert on psionics. But this rule is magic and psionics are like intangible or 'out of phase' to each other. Like psionicly made fire would go right through a wall of force and like psionic energy resistance would have no effect at all on a magic energy attack.

OgresAreCute

2018-11-06, 04:01 AM

I'm pretty certain there's a variant rule that does something like 3. If I recall, it says that if you miss an opponent by the amount (or less) than the cover bonus provided, you strike the cover instead. I can't for the life of me recall where I saw it though.

That cover rule is in 5e at least, not sure if it's in 3.5e too. The attack hitting the wrong guy in melee also does exist in 3.5e, but only for grappling and not basic melee. Couldn't find the actual rule, but under Improved Precise Shot's benefits it says:

In addition, when you shoot or throw ranged weapons at a grappling opponent, you automatically strike at the opponent you have chosen.

And under "normal" it says:

Without this feat, a character who shoots or throws a ranged weapon at a target involved in a grapple must roll randomly to see which grappling combatant the attack strikes.

unseenmage

2018-11-06, 11:39 AM

Every use of Simulacrum ever. :smallannoyed:

..
...
I'll see myself out.

AnonymousPepper

2018-11-06, 12:12 PM

Like:

1.A spell that is permanent can be cast casting over and over again (up to the spell level) is actually permanent and can't be dispelled.
2.It doesn't matter how far above (by flight) or below (by burrowing) you are relative to an enemy; if you enter their "square", it provokes an AoO.
3.If a range attack misses someone engaged in melee, it hits whoever they were meleeing.
4.If two very attractive people come across one another, they must do opposed Charisma checks. The one who loses the check falls madly in love with the other.
5.Free Eschew Materials and Rapid Metamagic for spontaneous casters.

And

6.Psionics and magic don't have any effect on each other like they don't exist to each each other. Like a magic lightning bolt will utterly ignore a psionic shield.

I mean, I use something *similar* to 3 when I GM.

Specifically, I allow a player to either take the -4 shooting into melee, or not take the -4, and if they miss, the attack is instead resolved against the ally (as I recall, with some sort of penalty to the ally's AC, I don't remember what, it's been a while). Precise Shot functioned as normal.

Was actually pretty decent as a risk-reward system.

Seerow

2018-11-06, 01:04 PM

Wizards and Sorcerers are weak so to make up for their d4 HD they have double spell slots.

Needlessly to say, I said a definite 'Nope' and went to find another game.

I can one up this. All spells can be cast a number of times per day equal to spell level. 9th level spell? Cast it 9 times before the spell is fully used

Same game had a skill introduced that let you take an extra purely mental action per skill rank. As you might imagine still spell and silent spell quickly became premium feats.

ericgrau

2018-11-06, 01:24 PM

I can one up this. All spells can be cast a number of times per day equal to spell level. 9th level spell? Cast it 9 times before the spell is fully used

Same game had a skill introduced that let you take an extra purely mental action per skill rank. As you might imagine still spell and silent spell quickly became premium feats.

The rule you quoted would make me wary about joining a group, but wouldn't make me leave. I mean it's still weaker than gestalt. And I could maybe demo why it's bad and ask for a self-nerf. Your group's rule would make me walk out of an existing game. After attempting to talk to the DM and group anyway. Let's say you start at level 5, 8 skill ranks. You have 9 turns.

Goaty14

2018-11-06, 01:45 PM

A player convinced me and the GM that the +4 bonus from the 2nd level ability boosters was a +4 Modifier, not a +4 Stat.

unseenmage

2018-11-06, 01:52 PM

In the past, before I knew better, I used to have one fumble deny a creature the rest of its attacks for that turn. Period.

To this day I still fudge the Initiative for groups of enemies by giving them +1 per critter. Though I also only group enemies in clumps of no more than six. Because I use d6s to represent groups of enemies.
I roll once for the group of goblins, using one gonlin's init bonus, then add between +1 to +5 depending on how many other goblins share that color of d6.

My rules guru player hates it. Everyone else just rolls with it cuz it does streamline combats some.

hewhosaysfish

2018-11-06, 03:25 PM

Thanks, I figured it was some kind of misreading. He was doing this every round he couldn't flank which did get silly yes.

There's a feat in Pathfinder which does basically this, at will.
Canny Tumble (www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/canny-tumble-combat/)

When you look at what it's actually doing, it's just Improved Feint but with Acrobatics instead of Bluff.

Seerow

2018-11-06, 08:52 PM

The rule you quoted would make me wary about joining a group, but wouldn't make me leave. I mean it's still weaker than gestalt. And I could maybe demo why it's bad and ask for a self-nerf. Your group's rule would make me walk out of an existing game. After attempting to talk to the DM and group anyway. Let's say you start at level 5, 8 skill ranks. You have 9 turns.

Yeah, it was.... an interesting experience to say the least. I haven't played with that group in over a decade, but man I could probably fill the thread just with weird quirks I remember of how they did things.

Another fun one: Stats were rolled with a 8+1d6. If you roll a 6, roll again and add it. This could go on ad infinum.

Oh then there was the time we were playing Shadowrun, and one player convinced the DM since Trolls were a player race in the game Ogres should be allowed to. Then brought in an ogre with D&D stats (ie Str 21, Dex 8, Con 15, Int 6, Wis 10, Cha 7) in as his baseline for a Shadowrun character (for those not familiar: In Shadowrun a 6 in a stat is peak human. 9 is peak cyberhuman. A cybered out troll might cap out as high as a 12). The DM saw no problem with this and even argued it was the only correct way for the conversion.

Arkain

2018-11-07, 11:11 AM

The usual 1s/20s are special on every damn roll, including critical fumbles on 1s. In addition, a 20 on a roll is "basically a crit", right? So just like that you obviously have to confirm it. No confirmation for fumbles, mind you. Rolled a 1 in combat? You fall down, lose every other action/attack you might've had and break your ankle or something. Have a good day.

Oh then there was the time we were playing Shadowrun, and one player convinced the DM since Trolls were a player race in the game Ogres should be allowed to. Then brought in an ogre with D&D stats (ie Str 21, Dex 8, Con 15, Int 6, Wis 10, Cha 7) in as his baseline for a Shadowrun character (for those not familiar: In Shadowrun a 6 in a stat is peak human. 9 is peak cyberhuman. A cybered out troll might cap out as high as a 12). The DM saw no problem with this and even argued it was the only correct way for the conversion.

And that's when you point out that ogres are basically a chubby Ork metavariant. Cue rage from the player :smallbiggrin:

StreamOfTheSky

2018-11-07, 12:59 PM

inb4 "critical fumbles"

But they truly are some of the worst houserules.

One DM had a fumble on a 1 where you hit yourself (even if it's physically impossible, like a polearm user or an archer), and then roll another d20 and if you roll a 1 again, you crit yourself. I had a Barbarian w/ a 10 ft reach polearm and power attack. I never used my rage or power attack, because then I would be guaranteed to kill myself on 5% of all my attacks.
He was also heavily using those stupid Paizo/PF monsters that have the aura of unluck, forcing you to roll everything twice and take the worse roll, and made it clear he knew what he was doing and it was intentional.

Another DM had my archer's bow string break every time I rolled a 1, which is a huge problem on a build that relies on full attacking...

Another DM had you drop your weapon every time you rolled a 1, instantly killing your full attack and keeping you from one the next round, too. if you fought unarmed or couldn't drop the weapon for other reasons, he'd have you fall prone instead. Which lead my character, a level 17 reach/AoO fighter type who you'd think would be good with a weapon yet was dropping it every other round, to comment in character about her "slippery hands." She pondered, "maybe I should get a locked gauntlet?" Only to immediately shoot down her own idea because, "Hmm, but then I'd just start falling down all the time."
The DM got really mad at me for having my character muse on how the world worked. Odd. :smalltongue:

Arbane

2018-11-07, 01:16 PM

But they truly are some of the worst houserules.

One DM had a fumble on a 1 where you hit yourself (even if it's physically impossible, like a polearm user or an archer), and then roll another d20 and if you roll a 1 again, you crit yourself. I had a Barbarian w/ a 10 ft reach polearm and power attack. I never used my rage or power attack, because then I would be guaranteed to kill myself on 5% of all my attacks.
He was also heavily using those stupid Paizo/PF monsters that have the aura of unluck, forcing you to roll everything twice and take the worse roll, and made it clear he knew what he was doing and it was intentional.

Another DM had my archer's bow string break every time I rolled a 1, which is a huge problem on a build that relies on full attacking...

Another DM had you drop your weapon every time you rolled a 1, instantly killing your full attack and keeping you from one the next round, too. if you fought unarmed or couldn't drop the weapon for other reasons, he'd have you fall prone instead. Which lead my character, a level 17 reach/AoO fighter type who you'd think would be good with a weapon yet was dropping it every other round, to comment in character about her "slippery hands." She pondered, "maybe I should get a locked gauntlet?" Only to immediately shoot down her own idea because, "Hmm, but then I'd just start falling down all the time."
The DM got really mad at me for having my character muse on how the world worked. Odd. :smalltongue:

By an amazing coincidence, the first game I was in after a previous one that used fumble rules, I played a (Pathfinder) Witch. That GM didn't use fumbles, or I would've had the enemies beating themselves to death.

RNightstalker

2018-11-10, 11:09 AM

We were starting a 3.0 game and I wanted to make the TWF thing work and couldn’t figure it out, so I went the Monk route and wanted to be an elf and had to argue with the DM about what the rules plainly said I could do. I don’t think he wanted me to have a crossbow, and his reasoning was a Pope almost banned them in The Middle Ages. Same guy gave all the experience to the one who landed the killing blow.

Anonymouswizard

2018-11-10, 11:27 AM

Pretty sure that one was an official option for psionics.

It was default for psionics in 2e, which had a set of balance issues mainly coming from the fact that 99% of published monsters are nonpsionic, and so 3e had psionics interact with magic as magic (and explained the reasons why at least in the 3e book, never read the XPH).

Now note that in a setting like Dark Sun where everything is psionic a dedicated psionicist was actually fairly balanced even with them ignoring most defensive magic because things were defended against psionics. But as in most D&D settings psionics were an afterthought 3.X took the simple route of stating magic defence=psionic defence, and 4e and 5e have decided to officially make psionics a 'third branch' of magic (even if I don't think the 5e Mystic has been officially released). Note that there is a bit of debate over whether 5e psionics should be the same thing as a Monk's ki, which would make for an interesting class but a different one to the classic D&D psion (it is, however, roughly the system I use for psionics in my 5e hack*).

* While there is no monk class there are also no 'standard' caster classes, instead every caster has a number of abilities activated by qi points. The main 'magician' class is the telepath.

CIDE

2018-11-10, 02:22 PM

To the first bit I have quoted: I got the impression that they thought LA came with hit dice, but the hit dice counted towards levels as normal. So a 4 HD, +2 LA monster would have 6 HD and be ECL 6.

If what was meant was that a 4 HD, +2 LA monster would have 6 HD and be ECL 4... Then I am thoroughly impressed. I did not know people could be that solidly wrong. :P

To the second bit... That's just funny. Stupid-but funny.

I've seen it every which way in regards to LA and RHD. I'm not surprised by anything anymore.

Yeah it was a red flag. It was pretty much confirmed in a separate incident in a different game he ran after which I said to our mutual friend that I'm never playing in a game he runs again.

The book thing was just a standing rule he had: no open books during the game. That didn't bother me so much. I've been in many games where DM's have had issues with players literally stopping the game to argue a rule with the DM. For him, it was essentially a way of enforcing the, "We are only discussing the rules before and after the session" rule. He was fine with notes and copies of spell text. I just didn't happen to have the text of detect magic copied at the time.

And yeah, that was definitely not how detect magic worked, and I knew that which is why I wanted to look it up, because that stunt almost got our thief killed in the ambush.

There was a point when I was so desperate for table time that I would've probably stayed with the group despite its issues.

I do this, I put book and page number next to everything I use, in case a rules question comes up, easy to reference the original source
I also use flash cards for summoned critters

I think I'm going to have to start doing that. It hasn't been an issue before but no reason not to if it helps cover my ass.

In most games I don't use summoned stuff due to balance reasons. But that's also another good idea.

Every use of Simulacrum ever. :smallannoyed:

..
...
I'll see myself out.

Explain, please?

It was default for psionics in 2e, which had a set of balance issues mainly coming from the fact that 99% of published monsters are nonpsionic, and so 3e had psionics interact with magic as magic (and explained the reasons why at least in the 3e book, never read the XPH).

Now note that in a setting like Dark Sun where everything is psionic a dedicated psionicist was actually fairly balanced even with them ignoring most defensive magic because things were defended against psionics. But as in most D&D settings psionics were an afterthought 3.X took the simple route of stating magic defence=psionic defence, and 4e and 5e have decided to officially make psionics a 'third branch' of magic (even if I don't think the 5e Mystic has been officially released). Note that there is a bit of debate over whether 5e psionics should be the same thing as a Monk's ki, which would make for an interesting class but a different one to the classic D&D psion (it is, however, roughly the system I use for psionics in my 5e hack*).

* While there is no monk class there are also no 'standard' caster classes, instead every caster has a number of abilities activated by qi points. The main 'magician' class is the telepath.

The psionics rules were my saving grace at one 2e table. The DM had new additions start at lower levels and without psionics I would've never survived or caught up.

unseenmage

2018-11-10, 08:52 PM

[QUOTE=CIDE;23496892]...
...
...
...
Explain, please?
...
[QUOTE]
Oh Simulacrum. The thing's a mess. And I have a very love//hate relationship with it.

The Similacrum spell is so rife with GM adjudication Q&A that the whole thing has to be house ruled to even begin to function.

Even in previous editions when there was a d% roll to determine how much of the original's memories the copy could access how does one decide which memories are accessible?

Some tables dont let them heal, others make them Constructs, yet others would have them melt (sarcasm that last one, or at least I HOPE so).

And since it was just copypasta between 3.0 and 3.x and then to PF its copious issues were never addressed.

I enjoy me some tasty rules lawyering and the minionmancer in me adores getting access to monster superpowers but even if it were a 9th level spell Simulacrum is bonkers as written.

Thus many (arguably most) GMs house rule it to be less bonkers or outright ban it. And in so doing often open even more cans of worms.
My own group prefers to play by RAW when possible but with Simulacrum even we wind up scratching our heads.

My own arguements usually boil down to focusing on the "illusory" or the "duplicate" part. Many folk can't even get past the bit about what constitutes half or not and the rest balk at defining "more powerful".

Doctor Awkward

2018-11-10, 11:47 PM

The Similacrum spell is so rife with GM adjudication Q&A that the whole thing has to be house ruled to even begin to function.

The mechanics of it are pretty well spelled out. It's a duplicate of the original creature except its HD is cut in half. All you are doing is backbuilding the creature at half its current HD.

Since nothing else is addressed in the text, you can assume that it is a perfect duplicate in all other respects, including knowledge.

Even in previous editions when there was a d% roll to determine how much of the original's memories the copy could access how does one decide which memories are accessible?

Same way you adjudicate everything else for it. You roll.
In 2nd Edition Simulacrum was a 3d2x10% copy of the original. So if you rolled a 4 it contained 40% of the originals abilities. Then, for each piece of information you ask of it, the DM rolls a percentile dice. If you got under 40% it knows the information. If you got over 40% it doesn't.

Some tables dont let them heal, others make them Constructs, yet others would have them melt (sarcasm that last one, or at least I HOPE so).

Since the description very clearly defines how a Simulacrum heals, those would be house rules.

Which is fine. Different tables can do what they want. But I don't see how that makes the spell itself "bonkers".

unseenmage

2018-11-11, 12:43 AM

The mechanics of it are pretty well spelled out. It's a duplicate of the original creature except its HD is cut in half. All you are doing is backbuilding the creature at half its current HD.

Since nothing else is addressed in the text, you can assume that it is a perfect duplicate in all other respects, including knowledge.

Same way you adjudicate everything else for it. You roll.
In 2nd Edition Simulacrum was a 3d2x10% copy of the original. So if you rolled a 4 it contained 40% of the originals abilities. Then, for each piece of information you ask of it, the DM rolls a percentile dice. If you got under 40% it knows the information. If you got over 40% it doesn't.

Since the description very clearly defines how a Simulacrum heals, those would be house rules.

Which is fine. Different tables can do what they want. But I don't see how that makes the spell itself "bonkers".
And if it has class levels and racial HD AND an odd number of one but not the other?

Also, beware the word 'assume'. Has been my experience that no two folk perform that particular act in quite the same way.
In fact folk who disagree with me assume the Sim is unhealable except for the listed method, is a Construct, is made from a full size snow sculpture... the list goes on.

As to the 2E stuff, I got no clue. Never played. Someone more fluent than I would have to speak to whether that method of adjudicating that situation is RAW or RAI or neither.

And the spell is bonkers because its bonkers. Just like any other spell that flips open the MM and hands monster superpowers to the player.

Doctor Awkward

2018-11-11, 01:53 AM

And if it has class levels and racial HD AND an odd number of one but not the other?

Cut them both in half, rounded down.

A frost giant Jarl (14 racial HD, 8th-level Blackguard, 22 total) would have 7 racial HD and 4 Blackguard levels, for 11 HD.

If both of them are odd, pick one to round one up and one to round down (or roll for it). So the sample Primordial Giant from Secrets of Xen'drik (Sun giant 13 HD, 5th-level warlock) would have 6 racial and 3 warlock levels, or 7 racial and 2 warlock levels.

If you don't know what order it took its feats, then keep whatever feats on it you want, so long as it still qualifies for them.

If a player is making a Simulacrum of themselves or another party member, then you have a progression so just take feats off the top.

Also, beware the word 'assume'. Has been my experience that no two folk perform that particular act in quite the same way.
In fact folk who disagree with me assume the Sim is unhealable except for the listed method, is a Construct, is made from a full size snow sculpture... the list goes on.

For the most part, those people assume incorrectly. The creature is a duplicate of the original with the same HD. It's type would not be a construct unless it was created from a construct.

A simulacrum is un-healable except for the listed method because it says so in the spell description. "A complex process requiring at least 24 hours, 100 gp per hit point, and a fully equipped magical laboratory can repair damage to a simulacrum." Required means exactly that: without all of these things it cannot be healed.

And it is a full-size sculpture because it says so in the Material Components: "The spell is cast over the rough snow or ice form". This is, again, sculpted to look like the thing you are creating.

As to the 2E stuff, I got no clue. Never played. Someone more fluent than I would have to speak to whether that method of adjudicating that situation is RAW or RAI or neither.
I have. And that's how we did it. The spell does not explicitly tell you to do that but it's by far the most logical method.

And the spell is bonkers because its bonkers. Just like any other spell that flips open the MM and hands monster superpowers to the player.

Lots of spells open up the Monster Manual to the player, but I really feel like you have a lot of undue hate for this spell in particular. At best it's going to duplicate something at about the same level as the party.

Doing shenanigans with caster level boosts to get something stronger doesn't make the spell overpowered. Its the caster level boosting shenanigans that are overpowered.

unseenmage

2018-11-11, 02:03 AM

Adjudicating which class levels and feats it gets is still adjudicating. And not everyone gets to agree on how its accomplished without clear instruction from either the spell or the rules themselves.

As to healing, you are wrong. The listed healing is additive not exclusitory. Unlike Ice Assassin (IIRC) it does not exclude other forms of healing. It just adds that method to the pile.

And the rough form of ice or snow is similarly undetailed. Matter of fact, as a material component it should be small enough to fit into a component pouch. There's nothing stopping the spell caster from just running their thumb creatively over a fistful of snow to meet the requirements.

So yeah. Loads of interpretation issues with Simulacrum. The rampant GM fixing of which creates some of the worst house rules evar.

EDIT: Just buy a scroll of Sim. Boom. CR way beyond what the players should command.

And it's not hate. Its fascination. I'm using Sim in a game right now even.

Doctor Awkward

2018-11-11, 02:21 AM

Adjudicating which class levels and feats it gets is still adjudicating. And not everyone gets to agree on how its accomplished without clear instruction from either the spell or the rules themselves.

Not everyone has to agree. The DM decides.
If he wants to build a character progression for the thing the player wants to SIM, then he can do that.

If he doesn't, cutting racial and character level HD both in half is easily the most expedient method.

As to healing, you are wrong. The listed healing is additive not exclusitory. Unlike Ice Assassin (IIRC) it does not exclude other forms of healing. It just adds that method to the pile.

Then why doesn't the description say, "In addition to normal forms of healing and curative magic..."?

If it could be healed using any old method like any normal creature why bother listing a special method of healing at all?

And the rough form of ice or snow is similarly undetailed. Matter of fact, as a material component it should be small enough to fit into a component pouch. There's nothing stopping the spell caster from just running their thumb creatively over a fistful of snow to meet the requirements.

So yeah. Loads of interpretation issues with Simulacrum. The rampant GM fixing of which creates some of the worst house rules evar.

You are expected to adjudicate the rules using common sense. If you are creating a duplicate of a creature from an ice or snow sculpture of that creature, it is utterly inane to assume the sculpture does not need to be the same dimensions as the thing to be duplicated.

By your interpretation 15 pounds of mithril would also fit into a spell component pouch since it's required "component" to Fabricate into a suit of armor.

EDIT: Just buy a scroll of Sim. Boom. CR way beyond what the players should command.

How is that again?
If you try to cast it from a scroll below level 13 (or 14), you have to make a caster level check or you lose the spell.
And the result would be similarly weak, since you still can't create anything below your half your caster level. Casting it at level 10 would create at most a 10 HD copy of a 20 HD creature.

unseenmage

2018-11-11, 02:53 AM

Doctor Awkward

2018-11-11, 03:32 AM

But the rules still need to keep everyone on the same page to prevent conflicting interpretations from inhibiting enjoyment of the game.

To my mind that's one of the things this thread's all about. And the poor wording of the Simulacrum spell is a ripe example.

I dunno. Because it doesn't. It ALSO doesnt say it's the only way the thing can heal. So it's not.

As to the dimensions of the snow sculpture needing to be the same size... why would it need to be? Especially as that's not what's called for.
Fabricate is a poor comparison. Fabricate lists a volume for its component. Simulacrum does not. Only a Disguise check. Think more voodoo doll than war memorial.

As for the scroll use I admit I was just parroting a ruling from an old GM. As for "cheesing" CL, isnt increasing CL to get greater effect from a spell just using the thing as intended?

The rules also don't say a human doesn't have 157 arms, even though they clearly do not. The rules also don't say that, upon reaching zero HP, you can't stand up from your chair, do the "I'm A Little Teapot" dance, and then upon sitting down have your character be refreshed to full HP and spell slots.

Not everything needs to be explicitly spelled out in the rules. Some things just are. "The rules don't say I can't", is far and away the worst method of approaching them. They are structured in such a way as to tell you what you can do, not what you can't do.

The statue would need to be of similar size because that's what a simulacrum is: a likeness or representation of the real thing. In the Sophist, Plato wrote that there are essentially two kinds of simulacra: one that precisely attempts to copy the original, and one that is intentionally distorted in order to make the copy appear correct to viewers (such as Greek statuary that is made slightly larger on the top so that the it will look correct when viewed from below). If the authors didn't have this definition in mind when naming the spell, they would have called it something else. The books also say that you are also expected to use real-world knowledge when adjudicating the rules.

unseenmage

2018-11-11, 10:39 AM

The rules also don't say a human doesn't have 157 arms, even though they clearly do not. The rules also don't say that, upon reaching zero HP, you can't stand up from your chair, do the "I'm A Little Teapot" dance, and then upon sitting down have your character be refreshed to full HP and spell slots.

Not everything needs to be explicitly spelled out in the rules. Some things just are. "The rules don't say I can't", is far and away the worst method of approaching them. They are structured in such a way as to tell you what you can do, not what you can't do.

The statue would need to be of similar size because that's what a simulacrum is: a likeness or representation of the real thing. In the Sophist, Plato wrote that there are essentially two kinds of simulacra: one that precisely attempts to copy the original, and one that is intentionally distorted in order to make the copy appear correct to viewers (such as Greek statuary that is made slightly larger on the top so that the it will look correct when viewed from below). If the authors didn't have this definition in mind when naming the spell, they would have called it something else. The books also say that you are also expected to use real-world knowledge when adjudicating the rules.

But we still need the rule of law in gaming because common sense is subjective. We have Simulacrum listing a method to heal and Ice Assassin listing an exclusive method to heal. Taken together we can infer that Sim healing is addictive not exclusitory. Or, if the GM doesnt know this we can assume its exclusive.

Not everyone knows the origin of the word. You are arguing for RAI and using your opinion of what the original authors wanted to do so.
For any kind of RAW ruling we default to the rules, not your opinion nor anyone else's.

That's the point. Sim is poorly worded and creates confusion. Which creates house rules. Many of which I categorize as the worst I've seen.

That you think you have such a great handle on adjudicating the spell and I think I know what I'm doing and we can both disagree so thoroughly is really all the evidence I need in that regard. But please do feel free to Google the rest of the Sim arguement threads from all over the web.

There are more corner cases where Sim falls apart too but those are less Sim's fault and more just general faulty interactions of magic with itself.

What happens to the Simulacrum of an animated object created or astral construct or other normally temporary creature. Does the Sim share their 'lifespan'?

Can you make a Sim of a Sim? If not why? They just creatures after all.

What of Eschew Materials or Sim as a SLA?

Mirror Mephits. :smallfurious: And PF's Winter Hag for that matter. Both get access to Sim as a SLA. Both drown the world in exponentially more Simulacrum of themselves.

How about preserving a bit of a Sim's finger in Quintessence and using True Ressurection on it after the Sim is no more?

Are Sims requires to eat, sleep, breath. Do they age? Are they immune to the Positive benefits of the aging rules because they cannot become more powerful?
Can they reproduce like their originating crearure?

What of templates? Can one Mineralize Warrior their Sim or the Sim made by another spellcaster?
Are Sims immune to vampirism and lycanthropy because they cannot become more powerful?

Can Sims heal disease or poisoning or ability damage? No word in the text on the matter so maybe not, right?

If a Sim is Disintegrated by the spell of the same name, do they leave a pile of snow or dust?
I realize the spoilers list is a bit pixel clickey. If is a lot of weirdly specific questions. But it is A LOT though. And I'm always finding more. Most of which get ruled differently at different tables. Making at least some of them house rules.

The Simulacrum spell is bad and the writers should feel bad. But I do so adore finding new and exciting ways that it interacts (or fails to!) with the rules.

Oh! So it must be bad because they wanted it that way.
Clearly they were appealing to the ancient philosopher in myself and others and just spawning years of informed discourse about the spell as an homage to the spell's etymological inspiration. Right? Right.

Mike Miller

2018-11-11, 01:40 PM

Can the simulacrum topic be moved to it's own thread now, so the original topic can continue?

unseenmage

2018-11-11, 02:52 PM

Can the simulacrum topic be moved to it's own thread now, so the original topic can continue?

Agreed heartily, and my apologies.

Doctor Awkward

2018-11-11, 02:57 PM

What happens to the Simulacrum of an animated object created or astral construct or other normally temporary creature. Does the Sim share their 'lifespan'?
The same thing that happens to a simulacrum of a called creature. It stays around until its destroyed.
The simulacrum is not an exact duplicate of the creature. It is an affectation of the creature, only partially real and having half the HD of the original.

Can you make a Sim of a Sim? If not why? They just creatures after all.
Of course. Why wouldn't you be able to?
The SIM of a 20 HD creature would have 10 HD.
A SIM of that SIM would have 5 HD. The next would have 2. And then 1.

It's a perfectly thematic representation of making a copy of a copy; something from the original is always lost.
This would be an utterly impractical use of the spell, given the minimum 1,000 XP price tag. So you can see why most wizards wouldn't choose to do this. Although one that does might actually make an interesting plot for a game.

What of Eschew Materials or Sim as a SLA?

Mirror Mephits. :smallfurious: And PF's Winter Hag for that matter. Both get access to Sim as a SLA. Both drown the world in exponentially more Simulacrum of themselves.

As it still retains the 12 hour casting time, and as neither of them likely have the wherewithal to repair their simulacrum's damage, I'm hoping you can understand why the world isn't "drowning" in simulacrums. Furthermore, copies of things immediately around them are only half as effective. So if a mirror mephit copies itself it would be a 2HD outsider that would die to a magic missile. Similar problems occur with a winter hag that copies itself, or local wildlife.

I am also assuming such creatures have better things to do with their lives than spend 12 hours of every single day creating ineffective duplicates of nearby creatures... like eating.

Although I did notice that Pathfinder the spell is not a perfect port: Paizo removed the XP component, making the spell way easier to abuse in a lot of ways than it is in 3.5.

How about preserving a bit of a Sim's finger in Quintessence and using True Ressurection on it after the Sim is no more?
True Resurrection only targets creatures that were once alive and had a soul. The simulacrum is not an exact duplicate of the creature. It is an affectation of the creature, only partially real and having half the HD of the original.

Are Sims requires to eat, sleep, breath. Do they age? Are they immune to the Positive benefits of the aging rules because they cannot become more powerful?
Can they reproduce like their originating crearure?

No.
They are not real creatures. They are affectations of the creature, only partially real and having half the HD of the original.

What of templates? Can one Mineralize Warrior their Sim or the Sim made by another spellcaster?
Are Sims immune to vampirism and lycanthropy because they cannot become more powerful?

No.
Simulacrums explicitly cannot become more powerful through any means. Draining it completely of Constitution would drop it's hit points to zero and cause it to immediately crumble to ice and snow. Attempts to infect it with lycanthropy would simply fail.

Can Sims heal disease or poisoning or ability damage? No word in the text on the matter so maybe not, right?

Yes.
Ability damage is a type of damage. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatStatistics.htm#abilityDamage)
The spell description states that any damage can be healed at the rate of 1 point per 100 gp over the course of 24 hours. So each point of ability damage would be recovered in one day at the same rate as each point of hit point damage.
This makes sense as a simulacrum is not real, being an affectation of the creature, only partially real and having half the HD of the original.

Since the majority of diseases and poisons only deal ability damage there is no reason to adjudicate them any differently than on a real creature.
Anything beyond that is beyond the scope of the rules and will be a house-rule regardless of how the DM does it.

If a Sim is Disintegrated by the spell of the same name, do they leave a pile of snow or dust?
Per the description of disintegrate, targets killed by the spell leave behind a fine powdered dust.
Though a DM could certainly flavor it differently in the case of simulacrum, to hint to the party that what they just killed wasn't what it appeared to be.

The Simulacrum spell is bad and the writers should feel bad. But I do so adore finding new and exciting ways that it interacts (or fails to!) with the rules.

Well you clearly enjoy hating on it, rather than taking a sensible approach to interpreting the spell within the context of the rules it is written.

I should hope I don't have to point out that just because you don't like it doesn't make it bad.

Oh! So it must be bad because they wanted it that way.
Clearly they were appealing to the ancient philosopher in myself and others and just spawning years of informed discourse about the spell as an homage to the spell's etymological inspiration. Right? Right.

Did you mean to color this text blue?

But we still need the rule of law in gaming because common sense is subjective. We have Simulacrum listing a method to heal and Ice Assassin listing an exclusive method to heal. Taken together we can infer that Sim healing is addictive not exclusitory. Or, if the GM doesnt know this we can assume its exclusive.

Not everyone knows the origin of the word. You are arguing for RAI and using your opinion of what the original authors wanted to do so.
For any kind of RAW ruling we default to the rules, not your opinion nor anyone else's.

That's the point. Sim is poorly worded and creates confusion. Which creates house rules. Many of which I categorize as the worst I've seen.

I agree.

I would also wager that the biggest part of the problem with many of these "houserules" is that the DM's making them did not actually sit down to read the full text of the rule books in the games they were running, instead relying on their own best guess for how they think something should work.

That's not a system problem. That's a user problem. I base this on the fact that, as you can see, all but one of your questions up there was easily answered simply using the rules of the game as they are written. And while it is not possible for the rules to cover every single possible instance, there are many such cases that can be consistently interpreted using existing rules and real-world knowledge as a foundation.

It's when everyone uses their own foundation, instead of the one presented to them, that problems crop up.