Question about simulacrum

[Mrark]

My master decided to let me get a simulacrum of a pit Devil, but we are not sure how to adapt his stats and abilities. Could someone help us doing it giving an approx profile?

[icefractal]

The method I use:
1) Halve the HD, change stats and drop feats as appropriate. That's the simple part.
2) For its special abilities, if any are way beyond what other creatures of its new CR (half) have, then weaken them. This takes some winging it.
3) If an ability is too strong, but it's not clear how to reduce it without changing it completely, you can keep it unchanged and add a 50% failure chance.

Size and ability scores are explicitly unchanged, IIRC, so those you don't need to worry about.

[Deadline]

This is actually relatively easy:

BAB is determined by creature type and HD. Since you have half the HD of a Pit Fiend, look up in the back of the monster manual to see what BAB that number of outsider HD gives you (Outsider HD gives BAB as a fighter, so it's a 1 for 1). (For a Pit Fiend, that means the BAB changes to 9)

Saves for Spell-like abilities are based on Constitution & HD, the formula is also found in the back of the monster manual (in the glossary I think).
- Edit - It's the Supernatural abilities that are based on HD, not the Spell-likes. (So if we are talking Pit Fiend, the Disease and Fear Aura abilities would drop their DCs to 22 for a Simulacrum)

HP is determined by an average based on HD size, which is also easy to calculate.

That should cover almost everything.

[Jack_Simth]

My master decided to let me get a simulacrum of a pit Devil, but we are not sure how to adapt his stats and abilities. Could someone help us doing it giving an approx profile?

The spell is poorly defined. You're supposed to remove anything not appropriate to the level or hit dice, which may or may not include spell-like abilities, natural armor, supernatural abilities, natural casting, and so on. HD is halved, and that controls skill ranks, most feats, BAB, saves, HP, and supernatural or extraordinary save DCs.

But what folks are usually after is the various utility nifties. And what of those it keeps are poorly defined when they don't come from class levels.

There's also the multi class question, but that doesn't apply here.

In the end, all you're likely to get here are opinions and arguments. There is not enough definition to give a complete RAW answer.

[RoboEmperor]

Create a Simulacrum of a 36hd Pit Fiend. That way when it's halved it's the normal 18hd Pit Fiend.

[Kaleph]

As a rule of thumb, you may want to decide that all spell-like are used at 50% caster level. If a wizard of that level wouldn't be able to cast the corresponding spell, then the spell-like is lost.

I'd leave natural armor, size, movement modes unchanged. The changes to the DCs of Ex and Su are automatic as they depend on HD. At the end of this process, you may want to remove everything which is far beyond the capabilities of a 7th level spell; for example, you could drop the 1/year wish and replace it with a 1/year limited wish.

[Deadline]

As a rule of thumb, you may want to decide that all spell-like are used at 50% caster level. If a wizard of that level wouldn't be able to cast the corresponding spell, then the spell-like is lost.

The Caster Level for Spell-likes is already based on HD, but house-ruling a removal of Spell-likes that emulate a spell which couldn't be cast by a wizard of that Caster Level is probably a good way of "removing inappropriate abilities".

[Psyren]

2) For its special abilities, if any are way beyond what other creatures of its new CR (half) have, then weaken them. This takes some winging it.

This is the important part.



3) If an ability is too strong, but it's not clear how to reduce it without changing it completely, you can keep it unchanged and add a 50% failure chance.

Keep in mind that for at-will abilities a failure chance may not matter, and also keep in mind the bit above.


Create a Simulacrum of a 36hd Pit Fiend. That way when it's halved it's the normal 18hd Pit Fiend.

If your GM creates an advanced Pit Fiend for you to copy then go for it.

[RoboEmperor]

If your GM creates an advanced Pit Fiend for you to copy then go for it.

Nope. Eschew Materials solves everything. On top of that so does Summon Component, Miracle, True Creation, and Wish.

[Psyren]

Nope. Eschew Materials solves everything. On top of that so does Summon Component, Miracle, True Creation, and Wish.

What page is the 36HD Pit Fiend on?

[RoboEmperor]

What page is the 36HD Pit Fiend on?

p.57. Under "advancement"

[Psyren]

p.57. Under "advancement"

Right, and who advances it?

[RoboEmperor]

Right, and who advances it?

Whoever wants to use the stats.

[Psyren]

Whoever wants to use the stats.

Right, for their game, i.e. the GM.

[RoboEmperor]

Right, for their game, i.e. the GM.

Or the player who wants to call one with Gate.

[Jack_Simth]

Or the player who wants to call one with Gate.
What Psyren's trying to get at is that not all things possible within the rules necessarily exist in a given gameworld. If no such Pit Fiend exists, you can neither Call it with Gate nor copy it with Simulacrum.

[RoboEmperor]

What Psyren's trying to get at is that not all things possible within the rules necessarily exist in a given gameworld. If no such Pit Fiend exists, you can neither Call it with Gate nor copy it with Simulacrum.

That's no different than saying you can't summon wolves because no wolves exist in the game world. You're not calling/creating a unique being. You're calling/creating a generic creature with advanced hd. Planar Ally can do this so why not Gate and Simulacrum?

And nothing says the creature has to exist at the time of casting. If you found a skeletal toe of a long dead creature, can you cast simulacrum to create a duplicate? So if you can create a simulacrum of a creature of the past, why not a creature of the future especially if you're ignoring the material component with Wish or Miracle? Or how about a toe of a theoretical creature brought into being with Wish or Miracle? And then ignored through eschew materials?

Possibilities are endless. Point is, if a Pit Fiend can become a 36hd creature, then you can create a simulacrum of it because there are iron-clad rules for it.

[redking]

That's no different than saying you can't summon wolves because no wolves exist in the game world. You're not calling/creating a unique being. You're calling/creating a generic creature with advanced hd. Planar Ally can do this so why not Gate and Simulacrum?

The spell requires a template on which to base itself. The template is a specific creature. I doubt eschew/ignore material components would permit that. Perhaps a lenient GM may say its OK.

You would have to gate in or planar bind a creature with advanced HD and get a toenail clipping or something. You would need to be a cosmic descryer to pull something like that off. Cosmic descryer gets +12 HD for its planar binding and gating over 10 levels.

[Psyren]

That's no different than saying you can't summon wolves because no wolves exist in the game world.

Yes, exactly :smallsmile: But in most settings, standard wolves do exist - for an advanced wolf, the GM would have to advance one of the standard (extraplanar) ones, then you could potentially summon it.



And nothing says the creature has to exist at the time of casting.

Simulacrum itself does - it specifically says you "duplicate", not that you create something from scratch. To duplicate something, it has to exist.

[RoboEmperor]

By default all advanced creatures exist.


The basic version of the creature can be called using lesser planar ally, but advanced ancestors require higher-level versions of the spell.

A typical voor can be called using a lesser planar ally spell. (More powerful voors might require planar ally or greater planar ally.)

The existence of advanced versions of these creatures is not unique to these two creatures. They're not the special exception to a general rule that says advanced creatures don't exist by default. There is no such general rule, so these two examples are proof that you can call non-unique advanced outsiders.

And if you can call non-unique advanced outsiders then you can make simulacra of it.

[Psyren]

By default all advanced creatures exist.

MM says otherwise:

"ADDING HIT DICE
When you improve a monster by adding Hit Dice, use Table 4–4 to determine the effect on the creature’s CR."

The "you" in this case is the DM, and therefore that advancement is something they have to initiate.

As for your specific examples - they don't say those creatures exist by default - they say that if they are advanced, their increased HD will require higher levels of the spell. It's essentially reminder text.



The existence of advanced versions of these creatures is not unique to these two creatures.

I'm not denying that rules to advance monsters exist. But the DM has to invoke those rules, just like they would with a custom spell or item.


Is it your opinion that dead creatures cannot be made into simulacra? Because Frostburn has a direct example of dead creatures being turned into simulacra.

I don't see what relevance dead creatures have here.

[RoboEmperor]

I'm not denying that rules to advance monsters exist. But the DM has to invoke those rules, just like they would with a custom spell or item.

Are you saying the DM has to invoke those rules for Voor and Dwarven Ancestor? Because that quoted section lies under "For Player Characters" along with summoning said creatures via summon monster.

No, the player can invoke the advancement rules too. And if you can for Voor and Dwarven Ancestor by default then you can for all other creatures. Cosmic Descryer is another instance of player controlled monster advancement so your claim that only DMs can use those rules is incorrect.

[JNAProductions]

Regardless of what the RAW might say, a DM is well within their rights to say "You get a stock Pit Fiend, not an advanced one."

And for what it's worth, I'd certainly err on the side of "The DM gets to decide if advanced creatures exist," not "Players can Gate/Call/Whatever creatures of arbitrarily large HD."

[Psyren]

Are you saying the DM has to invoke those rules for Voor and Dwarven Ancestor? Because that quoted section lies under "For Player Characters" along with summoning said creatures via summon monster.

Yep, that's exactly what I'm saying. The player can call them - if they exist due to DM creation.



Cosmic Descryer is another instance of player controlled monster advancement so your claim that only DMs can use those rules is incorrect.

On the contrary, the fact that you need an ability in an Epic PrC to access even a limited version of this proves my point - this is not a default reading of how those spells operate. And DMs allowing Cosmic Descryer (or even Epic in general) are responsible for the balance of their games that use it.

[Crichton]

Are you saying the DM has to invoke those rules for Voor and Dwarven Ancestor? Because that quoted section lies under "For Player Characters" along with summoning said creatures via summon monster.

No, the player can invoke the advancement rules too. And if you can for Voor and Dwarven Ancestor by default then you can for all other creatures. Cosmic Descryer is another instance of player controlled monster advancement so your claim that only DMs can use those rules is incorrect.

Dwarf Ancestor and Voor are both from MM4.

Dwarf Ancestor has a specific section of text titled "Advanced Dwarf Ancestors"(pg54) which specifically states that up to 18HD Dwarf Ancestors exist, and Voor has a statblock for a more powerful Voor, the Dreadful Lasher, printed(pg193), so them having sections detailing that summoning the more powerful variants requires the higher level summoning spells does not imply that any advanced creatures must exist. In fact, in the same overall section as Voor (which is a subsection of Yugoloth), there's the Corruptor of Fate, which has that same "For Player Characters" entry without the advanced summoning text, implying that the specific mentions of the advanced summoning in the other entries is the exception, not the rule.

Similarly, Cosmic Descryer creates its own exception, specifically stating that it can "conjure creatures with 4 Hit Dice of advancement"(and the more as the class levels up).


Neither the CD class feature, nor the 2 monster entries imply in any way that any or all advanced versions of monsters are available by default. There may be other rules or entries elsewhere that do imply that, but these ones don't...

[RoboEmperor]

Regardless of what the RAW might say, a DM is well within their rights to say "You get a stock Pit Fiend, not an advanced one."

No? Just like whether you can summon a Voor via summon monster is iron clad RAW, calling advanced Voors is also iron clad RAW. So if you want to use Planar Binding or Gate to call an advanced Pit Fiend, you can. It's not the advancement rules' fault that spells like Gate can bring in epic creatures.


And for what it's worth, I'd certainly err on the side of "The DM gets to decide if advanced creatures exist," not "Players can Gate/Call/Whatever creatures of arbitrarily large HD."

RAW and what DMs usually decide are two different things. I'm just saying, by RAW, players can use advanced creatures for planar ally, binding, gate, simualcrum, etc. and the DM has to go out of his way to stop it.


Yep, that's exactly what I'm saying. The player can call them - if they exist due to DM creation.

It doesn't say "(More powerful voors might require planar ally or greater planar ally if you so choose to have such creatures exist)". It says you can call more powerful voors with planar ally and greater planar ally. Definitive factual statement. Iron Clad. You can.

Also Golem Creation. If I create a Golem, I can advance its hd as much as I want. So your claim that advancement rules exist solely for DMs is false and is not an argument.


On the contrary, the fact that you need an ability in an Epic PrC to access even a limited version of this proves my point - this is not a default reading of how those spells operate. And DMs allowing Cosmic Descryer (or even Epic in general) are responsible for the balance of their games that use it.

No. You can't summon advanced creatures. The epic PrC changes this. But you can call advanced outsiders with Planar Binding and the PrC just increases the cap.


Dwarf Ancestor and Voor are both from MM4.

Dwarf Ancestor has a specific section of text titled "Advanced Dwarf Ancestors"(pg54) which specifically states that up to 18HD Dwarf Ancestors exist

This is irrelevant. All creatures have an advancement entry. The Dwarf Ancestor section does absolutely nothing but repeat the information in the statblock.


and Voor has a statblock for a more powerful Voor, the Dreadful Lasher, printed(pg193), so them having sections detailing that summoning the more powerful variants requires the higher level summoning spells does not imply that any advanced creatures must exist. In fact, in the same overall section as Voor (which is a subsection of Yugoloth), there's the Corruptor of Fate, which has that same "For Player Characters" entry without the advanced summoning text, implying that the specific mentions of the advanced summoning in the other entries is the exception, not the rule.

It says "more powerful voors". Plural. So unless you have a 2nd advanced Voor statblock the Dreadful Lasher is not evidence of anything.


Neither the CD class feature, nor the 2 monster entries imply in any way that any or all advanced versions of monsters are available by default. There may be other rules or entries elsewhere that do imply that, but these ones don't...

Planar Binding can call any outsider with 12hd or less, unique or otherwise. You need to know the name of the creature if it is unique. However if advanced creatures are not unique you don't have to.

So the question is: Are advanced creatures unique? Y/N?
If Y: You can't call creatures of advanced creatures without learning their name first
If N: You can call creatures of advanced creatures.

Dwarven Ancestor and Voor proves
1. You can call advanced creatures with Planar Ally/Binding and Gate
2. Advanced creatures are not unique

Therefore you can bind as many max advancement creatures you want as long as it is within the spell's limit.

Psyren's claim that players are not allowed to use advancement rules is false. Unless the DM bans it, the player can call more powerful Voors and Dwarven Ancestors as much as they want.

"Not Unique" means "lots exist"

[JNAProductions]

RoboEmperor, do you really think WotC has that ironclad, precise, computer code rules with D&D 3.5?

Really?

[RoboEmperor]

RoboEmperor, do you really think WotC has that ironclad, precise, computer code rules with D&D 3.5?

Really?

Some parts are. Drown healing for example is iron clad despite being ******ed.

Some parts require logic. I'd say they're iron clad too.

Some parts require Extrapolation. These aren't iron clad.

[RoboEmperor]

You know what, if we're gonna do this, lets be organized. Since I'm the sole opponent to all of you, I will lay out my reasoning and evidence and you guys post your disagreements at each section.

Planar Binding and Ally
1. Planar Binding and ally can call creatures up to 12hd.
2. Generic Creatures require no names.
3. Specific unique individual creatures requires names to call.

Q: Are Advanced Creatures generic or unique?
A: Unknown at this time. Probably not.

Monster Manual IV
1. For Voors, under "For Player Characters", it says you can summon Voors with Summon Monster IV or higher. Therefore it is iron clad that players can summon Voors with summon monster IV. No DM involvement.
2. Under the same section, right next to that same sentence, it says more powerful voors can be called by Planar Ally. Therefore, like summon monster IV, it is iron clad that you can call Voors 6-18hd with Greater Planar Ally. No DM Involvement.
3. You do not require a name to call these advanced Voors therefore advanced Voors are not unique.
4. Therefore Advanced Creatures are not Unique.
5. Since "Not Unique" means "Lots Exist", you can call advanced creatures with Planar Ally, Planar Binding, and Gate.

Simulacrum
Since advanced creatures are not unique, lots exist, therefore lots of 36hd Pit Fiends exist therefore you can create a Simulacrum of a 36hd Pit Fiend with Eschew Materials or other material component ignorers to create a 18hd Pit Fiend simulacrum and skip all the halving rule hassle.

Everything comes down to whether Advanced Creatures are Unique or not.
Prove to me that they are and you win the argument. Simple as that. I think I've proven that they aren't unique.

[JNAProductions]

So, because one monster has rules involving more powerful versions of itself (and there's absolutely NO CHANCE it refers to the Dreadful Lasher, no sirree!) all monsters can therefore be advanced infinitely and are totally suitable for PC use?

[RoboEmperor]

So, because one monster has rules involving more powerful versions of itself (and there's absolutely NO CHANCE it refers to the Dreadful Lasher, no sirree!) all monsters can therefore be advanced infinitely and are totally suitable for PC use?

Two monsters. Dwarven Ancestor and Voor. They aren't new rules. They are evidence. Examples. There is no "Dreadful Lasher" for Dwarven Ancestors. Since D&D is very unclear about a lot of things, when an official example (especially a non-stat-block example) clarifies a rule directly or indirectly (in this case about whether planar binding can call advanced creatures) you jump on it.

Not infinitely, the limit is the stat block.

[JNAProductions]

Two monsters. Dwarven Ancestor and Voor. They aren't new rules. They are evidence. Examples. There is no "Dreadful Lasher" for Dwarven Ancestors. Since D&D is very unclear about a lot of things, when an official example (especially a non-stat-block example) clarifies a rule directly or indirectly (in this case about whether planar binding can call advanced creatures) you jump on it.

Not infinitely, the limit is the stat block.

Okay. Find me the same text for a Pit Fiend.

Alternatively, find me the RAW that states, if it's true about one monster, it's true about EVERY monster.

Because to me, it seems like they included that because it's EXCEPTIONAL, not because it's ordinary. If that was true of every monster, you wouldn't NEED a note to explain that. It'd just be something you can do.

[RoboEmperor]

Okay. Find me the same text for a Pit Fiend.

Alternatively, find me the RAW that states, if it's true about one monster, it's true about EVERY monster.

Because to me, it seems like they included that because it's EXCEPTIONAL, not because it's ordinary. If that was true of every monster, you wouldn't NEED a note to explain that. It'd just be something you can do.



Although the size and appearance of the statue does not change, the spirit within might be that of a very powerful warrior. A dwarf ancestor can have up to 18 Hit Dice (the maximum allowed by the greater planar ally spell) but is still Large size.


Advancement 6–18 HD (Large); see text


Advancement

The monster entry usually describes only the most commonly encountered version of a creature. The advancement line shows how tough a creature can get, in terms of extra Hit Dice. (This is not an absolute limit, but exceptions are extremely rare.) Often, intelligent creatures advance by gaining a level in a character class instead of just gaining a new Hit Die. (See Improving Monsters.)

As you can see, WotC repeats general rules that don't do anything. So "they pointed it out therefore this is unique to this creature only" is not a real argument.

Voors can be called by planar ally because it's an outsider. By your logic any creature without a Planar Ally entry cannot be called because, as you put it, WotC wouldn't NEED to explain that you can call a typical Voor with a Planar Ally spell if you could before.

[Crichton]

This is irrelevant. All creatures have an advancement entry. The Dwarf Ancestor section does absolutely nothing but repeat the information in the statblock.

All creatures have advancement entries, but not all creatures have entire sections called "Advanced [creature name]" that state that such higher-HD versions do exist. That, coupled with your line about advanced ancestors requiring a higher level version of planar ally being in the very next section, points pretty strongly to Dwarf Ancestor being an exception, or at the least being a different enough entry that it doesn't count as evidence that any and all advanced version of creatures definitely exist at large.


It says "more powerful voors". Plural. So unless you have a 2nd advanced Voor statblock the Dreadful Lasher is not evidence of anything.

Logic flaw: two Dreadful Lashers is just as much plural Voors as two different advanced Voors is, so you have not refuted the claim that this, by specifically publishing statblocks of advanced versions, doesn't count as evidence that any or all advanced monsters must therefore exist.




You know what, if we're gonna do this, lets be organized. Since I'm the sole opponent to all of you, I will lay out my reasoning and evidence and you guys post your disagreements at each section.

Planar Binding and Ally
1. Planar Binding and ally can call creatures up to 12hd.
2. Generic Creatures require no names.
3. Specific unique individual creatures requires names to call.

Q: Are Advanced Creatures generic or unique?
A: Unknown at this time. Probably not.

Monster Manual IV
1. For Voors, under "For Player Characters", it says you can summon Voors with Summon Monster IV or higher. Therefore it is iron clad that players can summon Voors with summon monster IV. No DM involvement.
2. Under the same section, right next to that same sentence, it says more powerful voors can be called by Planar Ally. Therefore, like summon monster IV, it is iron clad that you can call Voors 6-18hd with Greater Planar Ally. No DM Involvement.
3. You do not require a name to call these advanced Voors therefore advanced Voors are not unique.
4. Therefore Advanced Creatures are not Unique.
5. Since "Not Unique" means "Lots Exist", you can call advanced creatures with Planar Ally, Planar Binding, and Gate.

Simulacrum
Since advanced creatures are not unique, lots exist, therefore lots 36hd Pit Fiends exist therefore you can create a Simulacrum of a 36hd Pit Fiend with Eschew Materials or other material component ignorers to create a 18hd Pit Fiend and skip all the halving rule hassle.

Everything comes down to whether Advanced Creatures are Unique or not.
Prove to me that they are and you win the argument. Simple as that. I think I've proven that they aren't unique.


Logic flaw: You're pinning everything on whether advanced-HD versions of monsters are unique or not, but that doesn't really matter at all. Even if they're not unique, all that means is that if they do exist, you can call them with said spells(up the HD limit of whichever spell it is). It doesn't imply that they actually do exist (prior to DM creation of them, which is the real question here). For the record, if they do exist, I don't think they're unique. I just don't think that it matters to the question of whether they exist at all.

So far your only evidence in support of them existing is the entries for Dwarf Ancestor and Voor, and those entries are at best questionable, given their inclusion of specific text stating that the advanced versions of them do already exist, in favor of all advanced monsters existing

[RoboEmperor]

Logic flaw: You're pinning everything on whether advanced-HD versions of monsters are unique or not, but that doesn't really matter at all. Even if they're not unique, all that means is that if they do exist, you can call them with said spells(up the HD limit of whichever spell it is). It doesn't imply that they actually do exist (prior to DM creation of them, which is the real question here). For the record, if they do exist, I don't think they're unique. I just don't think that it matters to the question of whether they exist at all.

So far your only evidence in support of them existing is the entries for Dwarf Ancestor and Voor, and those entries are at best questionable, given their inclusion of specific text stating that the advanced versions of them do already exist, in favor of all advanced monsters existing

Saying things don't exist is like saying wolves don't exist and therefore is unavailable for summon monster. I don't care what specific creatures exist/don't exist in some DM's campaign. All I care is that in the official settings, they exist. And they do.

[JNAProductions]

Saying things don't exist is like saying wolves don't exist and therefore is unavailable for summon monster. I don't care what specific creatures exist/don't exist in some DM's campaign. All I care is that in the official settings, they exist. And they do.

So, in other words, it's perfectly the DM's call to have them in their setting or not. And, considering the shenanigans that this allows, I hardly think it's an unfair nerf to say "Finding an advanced Pit Fiend (or any other unusually powerful being) is an adventure in and of itself."

Would you object this much to a DM who says "Drown healing isn't a thing,"? or "No Tome of Battle,"?

[Crichton]

Saying things don't exist is like saying wolves don't exist and therefore is unavailable for summon monster. I don't care what specific creatures exist/don't exist in some DM's campaign. All I care is that in the official settings, they exist. And they do.

You say they do, and you say that you think that because of those two monster entries, which are atypical in that they specifically say that the advanced versions they specifically allow you to call already exist. That does not logically translate into all advanced monsters existing. At all. (note that I'm not saying one way or the other whether they exist, just that those two monster entries are invalid as evidence that they do.)


And it's nothing like saying wolves don't exist. It's like saying wolves with class levels or advanced HD don't exist, which is a totally different question. Don't muddy the issue with invalid analogies to try to make the opposition look ridiculous, please.


As further evidence that Dwarf Ancestor definitely doesn't count, note that its line allowing calling of advanced versions says "but advanced ancestors require higher-level versions of the spell."

It specifically says 'ancestors' not 'advanced monsters require higher-level versions of the spell' which might, maybe, indicate that it could apply to other monsters. This text limits itself to only referring to Dwarf Ancestors, and so even if you're right about the advancement section just being a repeat of the advancement line from the statblock, which I don't think you are, this cannot be used as evidence that any other advanced monster must also exist.

[RoboEmperor]

So, in other words, it's perfectly the DM's call to have them in their setting or not. And, considering the shenanigans that this allows, I hardly think it's an unfair nerf to say "Finding an advanced Pit Fiend (or any other unusually powerful being) is an adventure in and of itself."

Would you object this much to a DM who says "Drown healing isn't a thing,"? or "No Tome of Battle,"?

Nope I don't. If you haven't noticed already especially with my psicrystal replacement debate, I argue how things work in a RAW-and-Official-Only world. Not a Sensible-DM world.

Conceptually there is no difference between binding a 12hd succubus or a 36hd pit fiend, but people don't care about the former and go crazy about the latter to the point they try to find text they can skew into a rule. I have a problem with this, but I have no problem with a DM saying "that's too powerful man, don't do that".

If we're in agreement about how RAW works, then I'm gonna respond to the other part of the argument in the previous posts I ignored to focus on this one.

Body parts are nonmagical mundane items. Wish can create 25,000gp of nonmagical items. Therefore Wish can create a corpse (or a part of a corpse if the corpse is worth more than 25,000gp. No matter how expensive the corpse is you only need a microscopic portion of it) of a 36hd pit fiend you can create simulacra out of it. In this scenario Wish created a new creature despite being dead so it can be duplicated.


And it's nothing like saying wolves don't exist. It's like saying wolves with class levels or advanced HD don't exist, which is a totally different question. Don't muddy the issue with invalid analogies to try to make the opposition look ridiculous, please.

Its identical. If a monster manual entry says "advancement:3 HD (Medium); 4-6 HD (Large)" then all wolves of 3hd-6hd exist.

Look at Golems. Greater Stone Golem is a max hd stone golem. Are you gonna say all the golems in between the normal and greater don't exist because they don't have a stat block?

[Crichton]

Its identical. If a monster manual entry says "advancement:3 HD (Medium); 4-6 HD (Large)" then all wolves of 3hd-6hd exist.
The advancement entry in statblocks is RAW proof that they can exist at that HD. So the question at hand is whether they already do, and you haven't shown that they do, by RAW...

Look at Golems. Greater Stone Golem is a max hd stone golem. Are you gonna say all the golems in between the normal and greater don't exist because they don't have a stat block?

I'm not gonna say one way or the other, since as I pointed out, I'm not arguing for one side or the other of this. Just that the 2 examples your entire claim that they do exist is based on aren't valid examples to show they do.

[Psyren]

It doesn't say "(More powerful voors might require planar ally or greater planar ally if you so choose to have such creatures exist)". It says you can call more powerful voors with planar ally and greater planar ally. Definitive factual statement. Iron Clad. You can.

Yes, you can - if they exist. And as stated, statblocks for more powerful voors do.



Also Golem Creation. If I create a Golem, I can advance its hd as much as I want. So your claim that advancement rules exist solely for DMs is false and is not an argument.

I get the feeling you're repeatedly searching the SRD for "advance" and latching onto anything that comes up :smallbiggrin:
Yes, players can construct golems (even advanced ones), but they don't construct pit fiends or voors or most other monsters. There are no rules for such.



No. You can't summon advanced creatures. The epic PrC changes this. But you can call advanced outsiders with Planar Binding and the PrC just increases the cap.

That class feature is called "Superior Summoning" but it actually does cover calling spells as well (and lists the specific ones it affects.)


This is irrelevant. All creatures have an advancement entry.

No one is disputing that. The problem is that entry is there for the DM, as stated in the advancement rules ("Adding Hit Dice", quoted above.)

[RoboEmperor]

I get the feeling you're repeatedly searching the SRD for "advance" and latching onto anything that comes up :smallbiggrin:
Yes, players can construct golems (even advanced ones), but they don't construct pit fiends or voors or most other monsters. There are no rules for such.

What! No! I'm repeatedly searching my memory. I think I've been around the forums long enough for you to know that I'm a construct and planar binding minionmancy fanatic. Ask me about anything not related to minionmancy, outsiders, and constructs and I'll draw blanks. Oh and add Psions to that list now. It's not a coincidence I've brought up Planar Binding in a Simulacrum debate or Golems for other examples.


No one is disputing that. The problem is that entry is there for the DM, as stated in the advancement rules ("Adding Hit Dice", quoted above.)

If we go back to my Greater Stone Golem example
1. The Max HD version of stone golem exists because it's in the MM.
2. If we're saying everything in the MM exists, then logically all stone golems between normal and max exist.
3. The Max HD version of the stone golem is explicitly spelled out because it has different stats than a regularly advanced golem, mainly higher save DCs for its abilities.
4. Therefore if the Max HD version of a creature is not explicitly spelled out, it has normal stats following the general rules for advancement.
5. It is stupid to say max hd version of creatures don't exist because they don't deviate from the general rules for advancement
6. Therefore max hd version of creatures exist.

I mean, if max hd Shadesteel Golems and Stone Golems exist, why wouldn't the max hd of other creatures also exist? Because their ability's save DCs don't improve to the point WotC decided it didn't need to take up book space for a stat block?

[Crichton]

I argue how things work in a RAW-and-Official-Only world



2. If we're saying everything in the MM exists, then logically all stone golems between normal and max exist.


1 - No, that logically doesn't follow, not as an implication of what's printed there. It would make sense for them to, but making sense isn't the W in RAW.
2 - If it doesn't actually say the words somewhere that they all exist, why would you assume it's RAW that they do?

[RoboEmperor]

2 - If it doesn't actually say the words somewhere that they all exist, why would you assume it's RAW that they do?

Because the game is working under the assumption that all creatures exist? Nothing says wolves exist yet you have Summon Monster saying you can summon wolves.

w.e I think this is as far as the discussion can go. I made my arguments but ultimately it doesn't matter as no DM is RAW-only.

I make Scrolls of Simulacrum with Wish or Reality Revision and then UMD it with an astronomical boost to UMD, so unless someone here is saying a Scroll of Simulacrum created by Wish or Reality Revision cannot create a simulacrum of a 36hd Pit Fiend even if such a Pit Fiend doesn't exist in the game world, I'm a call it quits.

[Crichton]

Because the game is working under the assumption that all creatures exist?
That's just it, though. There seems to be a disagreement about what that means. Psyren and others have said that it only means that the published creatures with their published HD exist, and you're saying that they already exist in all of their HD-advanced forms as well. Your claim is the one that needs backed up here, in order to be taken as the RAW of it, and what evidence you've given doesn't seem to support your claim.


Nothing says wolves exist yet you have Summon Monster saying you can summon wolves. No one is saying wolves don't exist, they're saying that advanced-HD wolves don't exist until the DM advances them, according to the 'Adding Hit Dice' rules.

[RoboEmperor]

No one is saying wolves don't exist, they're saying that advanced-HD wolves don't exist until the DM advances them, according to the 'Adding Hit Dice' rules.

Which circles back to Cosmic Descryer. How can Cosmic Descryer summon Wolves with 4 hd advancement if such wolves don't exist?

[Crichton]

Which circles back to Cosmic Descryer. How can Cosmic Descryer summon Wolves with 4 hd advancement if such wolves don't exist?

Because Cosmic Descryer creates an exception by saying that it, specifically, using it's Superior Planar Summoning class feature, can conjure creatures that have been advanced by 4hd (and scaling). It does not in any way state that all such creatures have already been advanced or otherwise exist (or don't exist. We've already established that they can exist, just not that they do exist already), and it doesn't make any implication that a player could do so without use of the Superior Planar Summoning class feature. As such an exception, Cosmic Descryer offers no evidence one way or the other for advanced versions of published creatures existing.

[Psyren]

If we go back to my Greater Stone Golem example
1. The Max HD version of stone golem exists because it's in the MM.
2. If we're saying everything in the MM exists, then logically all stone golems between normal and max exist.
3. The Max HD version of the stone golem is explicitly spelled out because it has different stats than a regularly advanced golem, mainly higher save DCs for its abilities.
4. Therefore if the Max HD version of a creature is not explicitly spelled out, it has normal stats following the general rules for advancement.
5. It is stupid to say max hd version of creatures don't exist because they don't deviate from the general rules for advancement
6. Therefore max hd version of creatures exist.

There is no "max HD golem" - the golem construction rules have no limit as long as you have enough XP and money to burn.

There are no such rules for players to construct a Pit Fiend, max HD or otherwise. There are rules for advancing one, which only the DM can invoke.


That's just it, though. There seems to be a disagreement about what that means. Psyren and others have said that it only means that the published creatures with their published HD exist, and you're saying that they already exist in all of their HD-advanced forms as well. Your claim is the one that needs backed up here, in order to be taken as the RAW of it, and what evidence you've given doesn't seem to support your claim.

Correct.


Which circles back to Cosmic Descryer. How can Cosmic Descryer summon Wolves with 4 hd advancement if such wolves don't exist?

This Epic class has a specific dispensation to do so that breaks the normal rules - not the first epic class to do so.

[RoboEmperor]

There is no "max HD golem" - the golem construction rules have no limit as long as you have enough XP and money to burn.

Yes there is. Stone Golems have maximum advancement of 42. So a max hd stone golem is a golem with 42hd. There are no rules for a 43hd stone golem so you can't create one even if you have enough xp and money to burn.


Because Cosmic Descryer creates an exception by saying that it, specifically, using it's Superior Planar Summoning class feature, can conjure creatures that have been advanced by 4hd (and scaling). It does not in any way state that all such creatures have already been advanced or otherwise exist (or don't exist. We've already established that they can exist, just not that they do exist already), and it doesn't make any implication that a player could do so without use of the Superior Planar Summoning class feature. As such an exception, Cosmic Descryer offers no evidence one way or the other for advanced versions of published creatures existing.


This Epic class has a specific dispensation to do so that breaks the normal rules - not the first epic class to do so.

You guys are completely missing the point.

1. Normal summon rules says you CAN'T summon creatures with advanced hd.
2. Cosmic Descryer says you CAN summon with advanced hd.

That is literally the only difference between Superior Planar Summoning and normal summoning. The creature still has to exist for the Cosmic Descryer's Superior Planar Summoning to pluck and drop in front of you. It does not grab a regular wolf and give it 4hd. It summons "creatures with 4 Hit Dice of advancement". The creatures already have the advancement. They did not gain any hd because of the class feature. "with" means possesses, not gain. So how can it summon a creature with 4 HD of advancement if advanced creatures don't exist?

[Crichton]

Yes there is. Stone Golems have maximum advancement of 42. So a max hd stone golem is a golem with 42hd. There are no rules for a 43hd stone golem so you can't create one even if you have enough xp and money to burn.





You guys are completely missing the point.

1. Normal summon rules says you CAN'T summon creatures with advanced hd.
2. Cosmic Descryer says you CAN summon with advanced hd.

That is literally the only difference between Superior Planar Summoning and normal summoning. The creature still has to exist for the Cosmic Descryer's Superior Planar Summoning to pluck and drop in front of you. It does not grab a regular wolf and give it 4hd. It summons "creatures with 4 Hit Dice of advancement". The creatures already have the advancement. They did not gain any hd because of the class feature. "with" means possesses, not gain. So how can it summon a creature with 4 HD of advancement if advanced creatures don't exist?



It doesn't 'summon' creatures with 4HD of advancement, it 'conjures' them. The 'summoning' increase of the class feature just increases the spells' normal HD limit on which creatures are valid targets, for the specific listed spells. Does that make a RAW difference? I'm at work and can't go look up the ins and outs of conjuring as a technical term, but I suspect due to the way they contrast the wording there, it's a mechanically valid difference.

[Psyren]

Yes there is. Stone Golems have maximum advancement of 42. So a max hd stone golem is a golem with 42hd. There are no rules for a 43hd stone golem so you can't create one even if you have enough xp and money to burn.

Of course there are:

"Note: The market price of an advanced golem (a golem with more Hit Dice than the typical golem described in each entry) is increased by 5,000 gp for each additional Hit Die, and increased by an additional 50,000 gp if the golem’s size increases. The XP cost for creating an advanced golem is equal to 1/25 the advanced golem’s market price minus the cost of the special materials required."

The 42 HD golem there is one of the typical ones they've mentioned, and you're specifically allowed to construct more HD than that if you have the cash and XP to do so. Pit Fiends don't have such an entry, because they can't be constructed by players.


It doesn't 'summon' creatures with 4HD of advancement, it 'conjures' them. The 'summoning' increase of the class feature just increases the spells' normal HD limit on which creatures are valid targets, for the specific listed spells. Does that make a RAW difference? I'm at work and can't go look up the ins and outs of conjuring as a technical term, but I suspect due to the way they contrast the wording there, it's a mechanically valid difference.

Indeed - "conjures" is the term used for the CD.

[RoboEmperor]

Of course there are:

"Note: The market price of an advanced golem (a golem with more Hit Dice than the typical golem described in each entry) is increased by 5,000 gp for each additional Hit Die, and increased by an additional 50,000 gp if the golem’s size increases. The XP cost for creating an advanced golem is equal to 1/25 the advanced golem’s market price minus the cost of the special materials required."

The 42 HD golem there is one of the typical ones they've mentioned, and you're specifically allowed to construct more HD than that if you have the cash and XP to do so. Pit Fiends don't have such an entry, because they can't be constructed by players.

Show me the rule that says you can ignore the advancement entry of the monster. Also, golems increase in size as they grow in hd. So what hd is a colossal stone golem? Or, more likely, you cannot create a colossal stone golem because the advancement entry for the golem ends at 42.


Indeed - "conjures" is the term used for the CD.

Is that really your argument? Advanced creatures don't exist because Cosmic Descryer modifies summon monster IX so that it conjures creatures with advanced hd? So what, summon monster IX no longer summons anything? The summon tag of the spell is removed because...? and the spell becomes create monster IX because conjure means creation instead of summoning?


The spell conjures one of the creatures

So i guess Summon Monster I doesn't summon creatures either.

I think this is checkmate. Explain how CD summons creatures with advanced hd if no advanced hd creatures exist or please concede. And this is on top of all the planar ally stuff so this isn't a technicality or an abnormal interaction in the rules. This is WotC intended. All advanced creatures, pit fiends included, exist by default and are generic and non-unique and available to players for summoning, calling, and simulacra.

[Psyren]

Show me the rule that says you can ignore the advancement entry of the monster.

I've quoted it several times now. Golems have a Construction entry.


So i guess Summon Monster I doesn't summon creatures either.

"Conjure" can be any of the three subschools actually (summon, create, or call.)



I think this is checkmate.

Were we playing chess? What color was I? :smalltongue:
The simple fact is that no argument on this forum matters once you get to an actual table - if your DM lets you create a simulacrum of a creature with no statblock, then more power to you.

[Mrark]

Well guys I appreciate the effort, but I didn’t mean to start a debate like this.. I already jave a simulacrum of a standard pit devil, I just need the profile to play it :(

[RoboEmperor]

I've quoted it several times now. Golems have a Construction entry.

I believe those rules only apply for base hd->maximum advancement hd. But it's not an issue I care deeply about so lets just agree to disagree here.


Were we playing chess? What color was I? :smalltongue:

I think you'd be white and I'd be black because black suits the power gamer more and white suits the calm guy more.


The simple fact is that no argument on this forum matters once you get to an actual table - if your DM lets you create a simulacrum of a creature with no statblock, then more power to you.

A lot of DMs stick closely to the rules so being able to prove that you're right by RAW helps.

[redking]

Simulacrum
Since advanced creatures are not unique, lots exist, therefore lots of 36hd Pit Fiends exist therefore you can create a Simulacrum of a 36hd Pit Fiend with Eschew Materials or other material component ignorers to create a 18hd Pit Fiend simulacrum and skip all the halving rule hassle.

This is what I cannot agree with. With ignore material components you can dispense with the need for snow and ruby dust, but the spell calls out the piece of the creature that must be used.


Material Component
The spell is cast over the rough snow or ice form, and some piece of the creature to be duplicated (hair, nail, or the like) must be placed inside the snow or ice. Additionally, the spell requires powdered ruby worth 100 gp per HD of the simulacrum to be created.

Every creature is "unique" in the sense that they are individual beings. A particular standard Pit Fiend may have different feats from another. Or may be advanced in hit dice, have class levels, and so on. Without the piece of a creature to be copied you have failed to create an "illusory duplicate" of a creature. You cannot duplicate a hypothetical creature that doesn't exist via ignore material components.

[RoboEmperor]

This is what I cannot agree with. With ignore material components you can dispense with the need for snow and ruby dust, but the spell calls out the piece of the creature that must be used.

1. The piece of the creature is not a target. It's a material component. Its cost is not listed so it defaults to negligible and less than 1gp.
2. Check out the Mirror Mephit from the Demonweb Pits. It specifically and explicitly creates a Simulacra of the PC without needing a sample of its hair and whatnot.
3. Therefore you are wrong. WotC officially used Simulacrum without needing a piece of the creature so your claim that this costless negligible material component is not ignorable by eschew materials is wrong.


Every creature is "unique" in the sense that they are individual beings. A particular standard Pit Fiend may have different feats from another. Or may be advanced in hit dice, have class levels, and so on. Without the piece of a creature to be copied you have failed to create an "illusory duplicate" of a creature. You cannot duplicate a hypothetical creature that doesn't exist via ignore material components.

Nope. Check out Gate. It can call Pit Fiends but not unique pit fiends. By your logic you can't call any creature with Gate. Since you can you're wrong.

[redking]

1. The piece of the creature is not a target. It's a material component. Its cost is not listed so it defaults to negligible and less than 1gp.
2. Check out the Mirror Mephit from the Demonweb Pits. It specifically and explicitly creates a Simulacra of the PC without needing a sample of its hair and whatnot.
3. Therefore you are wrong. WotC officially used Simulacrum without needing a piece of the creature so your claim that this costless negligible material component is not ignorable by eschew materials is wrong.

WoTC is all over the place with simulacrums. Sometimes they need to eat. Sometimes they do not. You can't get a single non-contradictory idea about simularcum from the adventure modules.


Nope. Check out Gate. It can call Pit Fiends but not unique pit fiends. By your logic you can't call any creature with Gate. Since you can you're wrong.

Pit Fiends exist in the multiverse, and thus can be called. What you can't call is a non-existent Pit Fiend. Of what is your simulacrum a "duplicate"?

[Psyren]

Well guys I appreciate the effort, but I didn’t mean to start a debate like this.. I already jave a simulacrum of a standard pit devil, I just need the profile to play it :(

Happy to have helped!

[gogogome]

Creatures don't need to physically exist for simulacrum. The effect of simulacrum is a duplicate creature. All creatures in the monster manual are creatures. All advanced creatures are creatures. So if you want to create a duplicate of an advanced creature you can. There's no reason why you cannot read about a creature in a book and create a Simulacrum of it. For example, if no wyrmling ever lived long enough to become a great wyrm, I don't see how this matters at all and a wizard should be able to create a simulacrum of one if he can ignore the material components because great wyrms are creatures.


This is what I cannot agree with. With ignore material components you can dispense with the need for snow and ruby dust, but the spell calls out the piece of the creature that must be used.

WoTC is all over the place with simulacrums. Sometimes they need to eat. Sometimes they do not. You can't get a single non-contradictory idea about simularcum from the adventure modules.

I suggest you review the rules of the game and make arguments based on those rules instead of whatever it is you're doing. Claiming that material components cannot be ignored even by SLAs which directly say they ignore all material components because you don't like how it works is one of the most ludicrous things I've read for a while. Cite a rule that says certain material components cannot be ignored even by creatures who cast it as SLAs or we're done here.

[RoboEmperor]

Creatures don't need to physically exist for simulacrum. The effect of simulacrum is a duplicate creature. All creatures in the monster manual are creatures. All advanced creatures are creatures. So if you want to create a duplicate of an advanced creature you can. There's no reason why you cannot read about a creature in a book and create a Simulacrum of it. For example, if no wyrmling ever lived long enough to become a great wyrm, I don't see how this matters at all and a wizard should be able to create a simulacrum of one if he can ignore the material components because great wyrms are creatures.

Actually, I think you're right!

1. Simulacrum DOES NOT TARGET ANYTHING.
2. Effigies. Can you create an Effigy of a Great Wyrm even if no great wyrms exist? The answer is a resounding yes. Great Wyrms are creatures. Effigies can apply to Great Wyrms. Therefore I can create a Great Wyrm Effigy even if no great wyrms ever existed. So likewise, why can't a Simulacrum create a real creature that exists in d&d? Because they don't physically exist yet? Makes no sense. Simulacrum is essentially a template and if you can create templated creatures whose base form never existed, you can create simulacrum of such creatures too.
3. Therefore Simulacrum can duplicate any real creature regardless of whether one physically existed in the world or not. Creatures with class levels and such are grey area (though DMGII says single classed NPCs are not unique), but all monsters in the MMs, including their advanced versions, are real creatures up for templating and creating simulacra of.

[Crichton]

Actually, I think you're right!

1. Simulacrum DOES NOT TARGET ANYTHING.
2. Effigies. Can you create an Effigy of a Great Wyrm even if no great wyrms exist? The answer is a resounding yes. Great Wyrms are creatures. Effigies can apply to Great Wyrms. Therefore I can create a Great Wyrm Effigy even if no great wyrms ever existed. So likewise, why can't a Simulacrum create a real creature that exists in d&d? Because they don't physically exist yet? Makes no sense. Simulacrum is essentially a template and if you can create templated creatures whose base form never existed, you can create simulacrum of such creatures too.
3. Therefore Simulacrum can duplicate any real creature regardless of whether one physically existed in the world or not. Creatures with class levels and such are grey area (though DMGII says single classed NPCs are not unique), but all monsters in the MMs, including their advanced versions, are real creatures up for templating and creating simulacra of.

Sounds like you might be on to something, so long as you can find a way around needing a piece of the specific creature you're making a duplicate of (you can, several such ways around it have been bandied about, I'm just mentioning it as a reminder to other readers that you have to actually make use of such a workaround, in the game, to make it work). As an aside, even being able to ignore material components, would you still need the snow? They refer to it in the Material Components section, but it's not really listed as actually being one of the components, just that you use some of the Material Components on it. The piece of the creature and the powdered ruby are listed as components, but the snow is just mentioned in that you cast the spell over it, and have to put the piece of the creature in it.


But what do Effigies have to do with this in any way? They're basically constructs, crafted with the Craft Construct feat, while a Simulacrum is just the result of casting a spell. Sure, they're thematically quite similar, so I can see why you'd think of them when thinking of Simulacrum, but they arise from vastly different rules-mechanics for making them, and being thematically similar doesn't mean the rules for one have any bearing whatsoever on the rules for the other. Just like being good at making armor via Craft(Armorsmithing) doesn't have any bearing on whether you can use Mage Armor. They both provide an armor bonus to AC, and that's as far as the similarities go. I'm not discounting your claim here that since Simulacrum doesn't target anything, you don't need them to exist. Just that the Effigy crafting rules have no place in that claim.

[Crake]

You're right, simulacrum doesn't have a target, and thus the only means for the spell to actually know what to duplicate is via the material component. If that material component is ignored, the spell cannot designate the original creature, and the spell just simply duplicates nothing, because the spell doesn't know which creature to duplicate.

Also, if you read the text of simulacrum, it does specifically duplicate an existing creature, because it refers to an original. You can't have an original if it doesn't exist.

[icefractal]

Simulacrum is definitely an individual; it can even impersonate its original. When you copy a Pit Fiend, even a standard one, it isn't "a simulacrum of a Pit Fiend", it's "a simulacrum of Xyrrax Hearteater, Commander of the MCCXXXIV Infernal Legion", even if you don't particularly care about that.

Wish can skip the component by emulating the spell (and in PF you don't even need a part), but there still needs to be an individual there to copy.

[RoboEmperor]

Sounds like you might be on to something, so long as you can find a way around needing a piece of the specific creature you're making a duplicate of (you can, several such ways around it have been bandied about, I'm just mentioning it as a reminder to other readers that you have to actually make use of such a workaround, in the game, to make it work). As an aside, even being able to ignore material components, would you still need the snow? They refer to it in the Material Components section, but it's not really listed as actually being one of the components, just that you use some of the Material Components on it. The piece of the creature and the powdered ruby are listed as components, but the snow is just mentioned in that you cast the spell over it, and have to put the piece of the creature in it.

Mirror Mephits create Simualcra without the snow so I don't see why eschew materials wouldn't either.



But what do Effigies have to do with this in any way? They're basically constructs, crafted with the Craft Construct feat, while a Simulacrum is just the result of casting a spell. Sure, they're thematically quite similar, so I can see why you'd think of them when thinking of Simulacrum, but they arise from vastly different rules-mechanics for making them, and being thematically similar doesn't mean the rules for one have any bearing whatsoever on the rules for the other. Just like being good at making armor via Craft(Armorsmithing) doesn't have any bearing on whether you can use Mage Armor. They both provide an armor bonus to AC, and that's as far as the similarities go. I'm not discounting your claim here that since Simulacrum doesn't target anything, you don't need them to exist. Just that the Effigy crafting rules have no place in that claim.

Effigies is just an analogy to explain that players being unable to use creatures that doesn't phyiscally exist in your world but exists in d&d makes no sense.


You're right, simulacrum doesn't have a target, and thus the only means for the spell to actually know what to duplicate is via the material component. If that material component is ignored, the spell cannot designate the original creature, and the spell just simply duplicates nothing, because the spell doesn't know which creature to duplicate.

How does Greater Planar Binding call Pit Fiends without a material component?
How does Gate call Pit Fiends without a material component?
How does Polymorph turn you into a creature without a piece of the creature?

Because the spellcaster knows about the creature.

Again, I refer you to the mirror mephit who creates a simulacra of PCs (unique beings) without any material component.


Also, if you read the text of simulacrum, it does specifically duplicate an existing creature, because it refers to an original. You can't have an original if it doesn't exist.

"existing creature" = exists in d&d. Not physically exist in your vicinity. All advanced creatures exist if the base creature exists.

We've established that Gated creatures are not unique. So if you can create Simulacra of gated creatures who have no name, why do you need to call one first before making a simulacra of it? The answer is you don't. As long as you know these generic creatures exist (in d&d) with a knowledge check you can create Simulacra of it.

[Psyren]

Creatures don't need to physically exist for simulacrum.

Then what "original" are you "duplicating?" Are you saying originals don't need to exist, or that duplicates don't need to copy anything?

[gogogome]

Then what "original" are you "duplicating?" Are you saying originals don't need to exist, or that duplicates don't need to copy anything?

Original creature is the base creature. If someone says "I create a simulacrum of a Great Wyrm" then he creates a simulacrum of a generic Great Wyrm using the stats listed in the monster manual. If someone says "I create a simulacrum of Johnny the Great Wyrm" then he creates the simulacrum of Johnny the Great Wyrm.

If the Draconomicon is an in-universe encyclopedia of dragons, a wizard can just pick any dragon in that book and create a simulacra of it just like how he can shapechange into one just from reading the book. In fact lets look at Shapechange.


it enables you to assume the form of any single nonunique creature

So if Shapechange lets you assume the form of any single nonunique creature, why can you not create a duplicate of a single nonunique creature? Nonunique creatures are creatures. Duplicates of nonqunique creatures are duplicate creatures. Simulacrum creates duplicate creatures. In addition to everything Robo said in this thread, Shapechange is also proof that every single nonunique creature in the game "exists".

You are correct if original creature means unique creatures exclusively. You are incorrect if original creatures include nonunique creatures. It is my opinion that you are incorrect because nonunique creatures are still creatures.

edit: I'm also saying nonunique creatures "exist" even if none physically exist. If you can shapechange into a nonunique advanced troll in a setting without advanced trolls, you can also create simulacra of them.

[redking]

edit: I'm also saying nonunique creatures "exist" even if none physically exist. If you can shapechange into a nonunique advanced troll in a setting without advanced trolls, you can also create simulacra of them.

Problem is -


Simulacrum creates an illusory duplicate of any creature.



You must make a Disguise check when you cast the spell to determine how good the likeness is.


A creature familiar with the original might detect the ruse with a successful Spot check (opposed by the caster’s Disguise check) or a DC 20 Sense Motive check.

Where is your original creature to be duplicated?

[Psyren]

Original creature is the base creature. If someone says "I create a simulacrum of a Great Wyrm" then he creates a simulacrum of a generic Great Wyrm using the stats listed in the monster manual.

Stats are a metagame construct. Your wizard is not pulling out MM1 and flipping to the "Pit Fiend" entry, and even if they were, those stats are not an actual creature to duplicate.

[gogogome]

Stats are a metagame construct. Your wizard is not pulling out MM1 and flipping to the "Pit Fiend" entry, and even if they were, those stats are not an actual creature to duplicate.

How do you explain shapechange? It turns you into a single nonunique creature. If those stats are not an actual creature to duplicate, then they're also not an actual creature you can assume the form of. Shapechange turns you into an actual creature. Why can't simulacrum duplicate this "actual creature"?

You need to understand that the "original creature" can be a "single nonunique creature" and all "single nonunique creatures" exist, otherwise a lot of things fail to function. Shapechange, Gate, and Cosmic Descryer are three, and Shapechange doesn't need actual physical creatures to exist. You are duplicating a "single nonunique creature". You are creating a simulacrum of a "single nonunique creature".

As I mentioned before whether you're right or not relies completely on whether "original creature" is exclusive to unique creatures. If it is not, and "original creature" includes "single nonunique creatures", then you are incorrect.

[Lord of Shadows]

Body parts are nonmagical mundane items. Wish can create 25,000gp of nonmagical items. Therefore Wish can create a corpse (or a part of a corpse if the corpse is worth more than 25,000gp. No matter how expensive the corpse is you only need a microscopic portion of it) of a 36hd pit fiend you can create simulacra out of it. In this scenario Wish created a new creature despite being dead so it can be duplicated.

Heh... any piece of a 36 HD Pit Fiend is hardly a "mundane" item. And it is to be used to make a Simulacrum..? I'd say that this Wish has to be GRANTED by the DM, with all associated risks and interpretations. But that's just DM fiat for Wish.

Heck, in PF, Simulacrum doesn't even require a piece of the creature to be duplicated.. just ice or snow.

Still, I want to be behind the screen when some hot-shot conjurer of simple tricks pulls this one out of their hat... :smallcool:

[RoboEmperor]

Heh... any piece of a 36 HD Pit Fiend is hardly a "mundane" item. And it is to be used to make a Simulacrum..? I'd say that this Wish has to be GRANTED by the DM, with all associated risks and interpretations. But that's just DM fiat for Wish.

Heck, in PF, Simulacrum doesn't even require a piece of the creature to be duplicated.. just ice or snow.

Still, I want to be behind the screen when some hot-shot conjurer of simple tricks pulls this one out of their hat... :smallcool:

Doesn't need to be mundane. Just needs to be nonmagical.

[redking]

Stats are a metagame construct. Your wizard is not pulling out MM1 and flipping to the "Pit Fiend" entry, and even if they were, those stats are not an actual creature to duplicate.

You win this thread.

This is correct. When you use planar binding or gate without naming a specific creature, you get a random creature of the type you are asking for, such as a succubus. You don't necessarily get the succubus from the SRD, though, which is only for DM convenience. Instead of a succubus with the dodge feat, it may instead have point blank shot.

Summonings are different. For a short time you conjure a creature which may or may not exist. Perhaps they are conjured copies. Perhaps they are echoes of creatures that existed. We do know that no harm comes to them - the conjuration simply fades on death.

Expedition to the Ruins of Castle Greyhawk had a scroll of simulacrum. Scrolls do not require material components according to the rules. Yet the scroll required a piece of the creature to be duplicated to work. This indicates that the material components are the ice and ruby dust, and the piece of the creature is an additional requirement that is not a material component.

[gogogome]

You win this thread.

This is correct. When you use planar binding or gate without naming a specific creature, you get a random creature of the type you are asking for, such as a succubus. You don't necessarily get the succubus from the SRD, though, which is only for DM convenience. Instead of a succubus with the dodge feat, it may instead have point blank shot.

Summonings are different. For a short time you conjure a creature which may or may not exist. Perhaps they are conjured copies. Perhaps they are echoes of creatures that existed. We do know that no harm comes to them - the conjuration simply fades on death.

Expedition to the Ruins of Castle Greyhawk had a scroll of simulacrum. Scrolls do not require material components according to the rules. Yet the scroll required a piece of the creature to be duplicated to work. This indicates that the material components are the ice and ruby dust, and the piece of the creature is an additional requirement that is not a material component.

Didn't I say cite a rule or we're done here? I don't see one rule text for any of your claims. So we're done here. Especially since I know the rules say you're completely wrong and you'd know it too if you spent even a second looking them up instead of wasting all your time trying your best to ignore clear cut RAW. There's not even any ambiguity to the rule texts you're so adamantly against.

[RoboEmperor]

You win this thread.

Says who? You?


This is correct. When you use planar binding or gate without naming a specific creature, you get a random creature of the type you are asking for, such as a succubus. You don't necessarily get the succubus from the SRD, though, which is only for DM convenience. Instead of a succubus with the dodge feat, it may instead have point blank shot.

Says who? Where does it say you can swap monster's feats out? I actually looked into this for Golem creation and turns out you can't. If you create a Golem it will have the feats in the MM, no exception. So where does it say a generic non-unique creature can use different feats than the ones written in the MM? Do you even know what the words generic, typical, nonunique, and common mean?

Why don't you give us actual rule text that support your claims so that we know you're not literally pulling **** out of your ***?


Summonings are different. For a short time you conjure a creature which may or may not exist. Perhaps they are conjured copies. Perhaps they are echoes of creatures that existed. We do know that no harm comes to them - the conjuration simply fades on death.


A summoning spell instantly brings a creature or object to a place you designate. When the spell ends or is dispelled, a summoned creature is instantly sent back to where it came from, but a summoned object is not sent back unless the spell description specifically indicates this. A summoned creature also goes away if it is killed or if its hit points drop to 0 or lower. It is not really dead. It takes 24 hours for the creature to reform, during which time it can’t be summoned again.

When the spell that summoned a creature ends and the creature disappears, all the spells it has cast expire. A summoned creature cannot use any innate summoning abilities it may have, and it refuses to cast any spells that would cost it XP, or to use any spell-like abilities that would cost XP if they were spells.

Where does it say you can summon echoes of creatures that existed? Is this your attempt to counter Cosmic Decryer's rule text?

Why don't you give us actual rule text that support your claims so that we know you're not literally pulling **** out of your ***?


Expedition to the Ruins of Castle Greyhawk had a scroll of simulacrum. Scrolls do not require material components according to the rules. Yet the scroll required a piece of the creature to be duplicated to work. This indicates that the material components are the ice and ruby dust, and the piece of the creature is an additional requirement that is not a material component.

Oh, so an adventure module is correct when it works in your favor and is a mistake when it proves you're wrong.


Material Component

The spell is cast over the rough snow or ice form, and some piece of the creature to be duplicated (hair, nail, or the like) must be placed inside the snow or ice. Additionally, the spell requires powdered ruby worth 100 gp per HD of the simulacrum to be created.

Made it big since I think you're blind or illiterate. Perhaps the bigger letters will let you see better. Do you understand what the word "additionally" means? Do you? So if these things are "additional material components", then what is everything before it? And why the **** do I have to argue that things listed under material components are in fact matieral components?

Why the **** am I here wasting time arguing the most basic, unambiguous, direct, and clearest of all RAWs? Why?

You know what, i'm done with you. I respond to people who disagree with me on how rules work because I could be wrong and I don't want to cheat. I don't respond to people who hate something to the point they will bend over backwards mashing random crap they just made up together while ignoring even the most unambiguous, direct, and clearest of RAWs just to pretend things work the way they want it to. Because, you know, these people are not interested in how the rules work, but instead are throwing a tantrum because... how the **** should I know. I have no interest in wasting precious time and effort dealing with your tantrum especially when there is a literal 0% chance of you accepting how the rules actual work so good bye. I will no longer be reading your posts in this thread. so don't bother replying to this post.

edit:

Didn't I say cite a rule or we're done here? I don't see one rule text for any of your claims. So we're done here. Especially since I know the rules say you're completely wrong and you'd know it too if you spent even a second looking them up instead of wasting all your time trying your best to ignore clear cut RAW. There's not even any ambiguity to the rule texts you're so adamantly against.

Yeah, I'm not gonna waste anymore time digging up even the most basics of the basics of rule texts to address all the random **** he makes up on the top of his head.

[Crake]

How does Greater Planar Binding call Pit Fiends without a material component?

They are literally the target of the spell.


How does Gate call Pit Fiends without a material component?

You name them as part of the casting of the spell: "By naming a particular being or kind of being as you cast the spell"


How does Polymorph turn you into a creature without a piece of the creature?

Because Polymorph allows the caster to decide what form to take.

Simulacrum however, doesn't allow the caster to decide, which creature is duplicated is determined by the part of the creature that is put into the snow. You can't, for example, put in a piece of a pit fiend, and then change your mind, saying "nah, I wanna make a solar actually".


Says who? Where does it say you can swap monster's feats out?

You don't swap out anything, the DM does. When you say "I planar bind a succubus", the DM plucks a random succubus from the planes and plonks her in front of you. She may well have the elite array instead of base succubus stats, she may have different feats, she may have flaws to grant her ADDITIONAL feats, hell, she may even be half dead because you just pulled her out of a fight with a vrock.

When you planar bind a creature, you aren't guaranteed the stock standard, because it doesn't specify that you do (unlike with polymorphing or shapechanging, which specifically says you gain the abilities of a standard member of that race).

Technically summoning is subject to the same whims of the DM, as nothing in the summoning subschool, nor the summon monster spell says that you get a full hp, all abilities unused, stock standard version of the creature you summon, but I think customizing every summon is beyond the effort that most DMs are willing to put in, so they just default to the standard. There is actually a summoning variant which allows you to have an array of customized summons, though if they die, they can't be summoned again for 24 hours. They can even be equipped with gear by actually planar binding them, or visiting them with plane shift, which seems to me to suggest that it's quite possible to randomly summon a monster who just happens to have a tonne of loot by pure chance, and have an incredibly overpowered summon once in a while.

[RoboEmperor]

Simulacrum however, doesn't allow the caster to decide, which creature is duplicated is determined by the part of the creature that is put into the snow. You can't, for example, put in a piece of a pit fiend, and then change your mind, saying "nah, I wanna make a solar actually".

So how do Mirror Mephits create simulacrums? Stop ignoring the fact that 100% of spells, even Fabricate, can have their material component ignored. We've had this argument before in another thread too. I'll repeat it here too.

Major and Minor Creation lets me create any vegetable matter, but its material component requires a tiny piece of the material to be created. So if I want to create grass i need a small amount of grass in my hand. Are you going to stand there and say that Major Creation fails when you use Eschew Materials to ignore the grass component because the spell wouldn't know what kind of material it's creating? And that I'm not deciding what material I create with major creation but my grass component is? And that every single creature with Minor or Major Creation as an SLA like Djinni can't ignore that material component?

If no then how the **** is Simulacrum any different? What the **** is so special about simulacrum's goddamn material component? How is deciding to create Iron without a piece of Iron any different than creating a Pit Fiend without a piece of Pit Fiend?

I am no longer going to respond to anyone saying simulacrum's material component is not ignorable especially since those people keep ignoring mirror mephits, both SLA and eschew material rule texts, and just plain common sense. Stop trying to make up whatever BS reason you can to try to defy RAW because whatever reason you come up with is gonna cause dysfunction elsewhere just like your reasoning caused a dysfunction with major and minor creation. Not to mention, your entire claim is completely and totally unsupported by any rule text in the game. At all. In fact it is mutually exclusive to every rule concerning material components in the game, and mutually exclusive with mirror mephits.

Mirror Mephit is a WotC sanctioned use of Simulacrum that completely ignores the material component so whatever reasoning you come up with to defy RAW is WRONG.

Simulacrum's material component is just that. A material component. It is no different than any other irrelevant material component in the game like bat poop for fireball and WotC itself ignored the material component. This is undeniable undisprovable FACT. So DEAL with it. Show me RAW that says simulacrum is a super mega ultra special material component that cannot be ignored by SLAs and epic feats alike or don't say anything at all.


You don't swap out anything, the DM does. When you say "I planar bind a succubus", the DM plucks a random succubus from the planes and plonks her in front of you. She may well have the elite array instead of base succubus stats, she may have different feats, she may have flaws to grant her ADDITIONAL feats, hell, she may even be half dead because you just pulled her out of a fight with a vrock.

When you planar bind a creature, you aren't guaranteed the stock standard, because it doesn't specify that you do (unlike with polymorphing or shapechanging, which specifically says you gain the abilities of a standard member of that race).

Technically summoning is subject to the same whims of the DM, as nothing in the summoning subschool, nor the summon monster spell says that you get a full hp, all abilities unused, stock standard version of the creature you summon, but I think customizing every summon is beyond the effort that most DMs are willing to put in, so they just default to the standard. There is actually a summoning variant which allows you to have an array of customized summons, though if they die, they can't be summoned again for 24 hours. They can even be equipped with gear by actually planar binding them, or visiting them with plane shift, which seems to me to suggest that it's quite possible to randomly summon a monster who just happens to have a tonne of loot by pure chance, and have an incredibly overpowered summon once in a while.

I guess planar binding's text is ambiguous enough that you could be right here. Not that I care anymore since my switch to psionics. Simulacrum is literally the only spell I care about now.

[redking]

Q1: Are the MM stats that of a typical creature?
Q2: Are creatures that don't use MM stats typical as well?
Q3: Does generic non-unique mean typical or atypical?

Simulacrum allows the caster to duplicate a particular creature. Whether the creature is typical or not is irrelevant. If you can find a "typical creature" to duplicate and have a piece of it, then it can be duplicated. Then you make the rolls for likeness.

Simulacrum creates duplicates. The spell is very specific about that. If you were saying that ignore material components could duplicate a specific creature, whether typical or not (that you had seen, for example), that would be one thing. I would still disagree but it is in the realm of plausibility. What you are saying is that you can produce a creature that isn't a duplicate of anything.


I am no longer going to respond to anyone saying simulacrum's material component is not ignorable especially since those people keep ignoring mirror mephits, both SLA and eschew material rule texts, and just plain common sense

I am not ignoring anything. Very early on I said that the modules are contractory on the matter. I even gave an example.



conjuration (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_conjuration&alpha=)
Each conjuration spell belongs to one of five subschools. Conjurations bring manifestations of objects, creatures, or some form of energy to you (the summoning subschool), actually transport creatures from another plane of existence to your plane (calling), heal (healing), transport creatures or objects over great distances (teleportation), or create objects or effects on the spot (creation). Creatures you conjure usually, but not always, obey your commands. A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it. The creature or object must appear within the spell's range, but it does not have to remain within the range.

Source: PHB

There's another counter example to your copy/paste about summoning.

I think I will rewrite a fix for Simulacrum, since it is giving people so much trouble.

[redking]

Lets fix it!

Simulacrum
Illusion (Shadow)
Level: Sor/Wiz 7
Components: V, S, M, XP
Casting Time: 12 hours
Range: 0 ft.
Effect: One duplicate creature
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No

Simulacrum creates an illusory duplicate of any creature that has existed. The duplicate creature is partially real and formed from ice or snow. It appears to be the same as the original, but it has only one-half of the real creature’s levels or Hit Dice (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD, with the most powerful abilities removed first in the case of spellcasting, SLA, and special abilities). You can’t create a simulacrum of a creature whose Hit Dice or levels exceed twice your caster level. You must make a Disguise check when you cast the spell to determine how good the likeness is. A creature familiar with the original might detect the ruse with a successful Spot check (opposed by the caster’s Disguise check) or a DC 20 Sense Motive check.

A simulacrum is not a construct and does not have the construct type or construct traits. The simulacrum spell creates a duplicate of some creature and the duplicate has the same creature type as the original. If the original creature eats, breathes, and ages, so does the simulacrum, and may take penalties or die from such. A simulacrum does not heal naturally through rest, but magical healing can heal the simulacrum if the original creature could be healed magically. A simulacrum retains regeneration or fast healing, if possessed by the original creature, but is destroyed when reduced to 0 hit points.

At all times the simulacrum remains under your absolute command. No special telepathic link exists, so command must be exercised in some other manner. A simulacrum has no ability to become more powerful. It cannot increase its level or abilities. If reduced to 0 hit points or otherwise destroyed, it reverts to snow and melts instantly into nothingness. If necessary, 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.

Focus Component
A piece of the creature to be duplicated (hair, nail, or the like). As the piece of the original creature to be duplicated, the focus component must be provided even if you are otherwise able to ignore focus components (such as by casting simulacrum as a special ability).

Material Component
The spell is cast over the rough snow or ice form, and the focus component must be placed inside the snow or ice. Additionally, the spell requires powdered ruby worth 100 gp per HD of the simulacrum to be created.

XP Cost
100 XP per HD of the simulacrum to be created (minimum 1,000 XP).

[Psyren]

How do you explain shapechange? It turns you into a single nonunique creature. If those stats are not an actual creature to duplicate, then they're also not an actual creature you can assume the form of. Shapechange turns you into an actual creature. Why can't simulacrum duplicate this "actual creature"?

You need to understand that the "original creature" can be a "single nonunique creature" and all "single nonunique creatures" exist, otherwise a lot of things fail to function. Shapechange, Gate, and Cosmic Descryer are three, and Shapechange doesn't need actual physical creatures to exist. You are duplicating a "single nonunique creature". You are creating a simulacrum of a "single nonunique creature".

As I mentioned before whether you're right or not relies completely on whether "original creature" is exclusive to unique creatures. If it is not, and "original creature" includes "single nonunique creatures", then you are incorrect.

Standard creatures (i.e. the regular statblocks) certainly do exist. Advanced ones are dependent on the DM to say "this is in my world" because the rules for advancing are optional and must be invoked by the DM. It would be like saying you want to make a simulacrum of a Red Dragon with Warblade levels - sure they can exist, but if your DM doesn't make one for you to copy, then they don't.

[gogogome]

Standard creatures (i.e. the regular statblocks) certainly do exist. Advanced ones are dependent on the DM to say "this is in my world" because the rules for advancing are optional and must be invoked by the DM. It would be like saying you want to make a simulacrum of a Red Dragon with Warblade levels - sure they can exist, but if your DM doesn't make one for you to copy, then they don't.

As Robo put it, we circle back to Cosmic Descryer where the class feature assumes advanced versions of all summoned creatures exist. I don't know about class levels but advanced hd creatures are stilll generic, non-unique, and exists if the base creature exists just like how Great Wyrms are advanced wyrmlings and they are generic, non-unique, and exists and extraplanar dragons are available for Gate. And don't need to physically exist for Shapechange and Simulacrum.

[RoboEmperor]

As Robo put it, we circle back to Cosmic Descryer where the class feature assumes advanced versions of all summoned creatures exist. I don't know about class levels but advanced hd creatures are stilll generic, non-unique, and exists if the base creature exists just like how Great Wyrms are advanced wyrmlings and they are generic, non-unique, and exists and extraplanar dragons are available for Gate. And don't need to physically exist for Shapechange and Simulacrum.

Things that use advanced hd in d&d
Cosmic Descryer: Superior Planar Summoning
Planar Ally: Dwarven Ancestor
Planar Ally: Voor
Greater Stone Golem
Greater Shadesteel Golem
Every single dragon ever printed (their age categories are defined in Advancement section)

I think it's safe to say this is a mountain of evidence that says all advanced creatures exist in d&d by default.

So....
1. You can create simulacra of generic non-unique creatures (because they are creatures)
2. All generic non-unique creatures exist even though they don't exist physically in your world (Shapechange, ty gogogome)
3. As long as 36hd pit fiends exist in d&d you can make a simulacrum of a 36hd pit fiend.
4. All advanced creatures exist in d&d and are generic non-unique (see overwhelming amount of evidence above)
5. Therefore you can create a simulacrum of a 36hd pit fiend if you can ignore material components 1gp or less regardless of whether one physically exists in your world or not since they exist in d&d.

Only way this is wrong is if simulacrum can only create simulacra of unique creatures.
Psyren's claim that advanced creatures don't exist unless DMs go out of their way to say they exist is wrong (see the amount of content that uses advanced creatures above)
Anyone saying advanced creatures are not generic or unique is wrong (look at planar ally and officially advanced creatures like golems and dragons. All are advanced creatures and all are generic/non-unique)

So I think this discussion is at its end.

[Psyren]

As Robo put it, we circle back to Cosmic Descryer where the class feature assumes advanced versions of all summoned creatures exist.

Which I already answered by saying that a specific ability in an epic PrC is not evidence of a general rule.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Anyone saying advanced creatures are not generic or unique is wrong (look at planar ally and officially advanced creatures like golems and dragons. All are advanced creatures and all are generic/non-unique)

You have demonstrated five examples where monsters are given advanced forms but you extend it to all in the absence of a general rule. The thing is, nothing even guarantees that pit fiends are in a game. There is no general rule stating that every printed monsters exists at all.

Also you all are missing the obvious point: in spite of having an advancement line pit fiends cannot be advanced by outsider hit dice. The rule is:



Intelligent creatures that are not humanoid in shape, and nonintelligent monsters, can advance by increasing their Hit Dice. Creatures with increased Hit Dice are usually superior specimens of their race, bigger and more powerful than their run-of-the-mill fellows.

Note it says shape not type or appearance. Both winged and large sized humanoids exist and pit fiend is simply a hexapod humanoid in shape (like an avoral or a winged dragonborn or anyone with the dragon wings feat or a lesser tiefling/aasimar with the outsider wings feat) so thanks to the dysfunctional rules pit fiend can never advance by hit dice.

[gogogome]

Which I already answered by saying that a specific ability in an epic PrC is not evidence of a general rule.

Which Robo repeatedly pointed out that Cosmic Descryer does not advance the hd of creatures but instead summons an already advanced creature. And this:

Things that use advanced hd in d&d
Cosmic Descryer: Superior Planar Summoning
Planar Ally: Dwarven Ancestor
Planar Ally: Voor
Greater Stone Golem
Greater Shadesteel Golem
Every single dragon ever printed (their age categories are defined in Advancement section).

I think you're the one being irrational here.
You dismissed Cosmic Descryer because it's an Epic PrC when it has absolutely nothing to do with advancing creatures' hd. The Epic PrC lets you summon advanced creatures, not create or advance the hd of creatures.
You dismissed Dwarven Ancestor because the monster text repeated redundant information about calling advanced creatures with higher levels of planar ally
You dismissed Voor because the monster text repeated redundant information about calling advanced creautres with higher levels of planar ally
You also dismissed Voor because the MMIV gave stats for one advanced Voor
You dismissed Greater Stone Golem claiming that the advancement rules can be ignored and Stone Golems have no hd cap, which doesn't have anything to do with the fact that advanced Stone Golem exists and is generic.
You ignored my point about every single dragon being an advanced creature.

I agree with Robo that this is a mountain of evidence of a general rule. If this is not even to convince you then I'm afraid there is nothing that can convince you so I must conclude you are irrational.


You have demonstrated five examples where monsters are given advanced forms but you extend it to all in the absence of a general rule. The thing is, nothing even guarantees that pit fiends are in a game. There is no general rule stating that every printed monsters exists at all.

Cosmic Descryer summons advanced creatures of every monster in Summon Monster line of spells. So that alone is 246 monsters. I don't know how many dragons there are but there's at least 59 in draconomicon and core so that's 305 monsters where advanced versions exist by RAW. I think it's safe to say this is a general rule.

If you and psyren claim the existence of 305+ advanced creatures is not a mountain of evidence then there's nothing more to discuss.

I mean it. Even putting aside all of this, advancement section of a creature's stat block is RAW. Not optional, not variant, but RAW so all advanced versions of the creature exist in d&d.

Psyren, instead of Robo and me bending over backwards to satsify your whims, I ask that you show me RAW that says the advancement entry of the monster stat block is an optional variant rule for DMs only. And I reject all the quotes you gave us earlier in this thread because none of it directly says only DMs may use those rules and we have players using those rules for golems. Come up with more RAW that explicity show only DMs may use advanced creatures and that Golems were a specific exception to this general rule you claim that exist.

I will repeat for emphasis. Please show me the general rule that says only DMs may use advancement entries of monsters and that they don't exist in normal d&d.

As a DM who has no interest in simulacrum, Robo's Planar Ally example was enough to convince me that he is right back when he made his Planar Binding is Slavery thread. If this and dragons and golems and Cosmic Descryer and the fact that the advancement entry is not an optional or variant rule is not enough to convince you then I must put you on the same boat as redking.

Show us an example in d&d where a player is denied advancement rules instead of Robo and me digging through more books for more examples on top of the 305+ monsters we've already provided.

The burden of proof is no longer on us. We have shown 305 instances of advanced monsters being used in d&d. All you did was quote a rule about advancement which does not exclude players from using it. It is now on you to show us without a doubt that these examples were exceptions to this general rule you claim exists.

[RoboEmperor]

I'm gonna call it quits for real this time. You made a great point gogogome, about how everyone here is sitting on their asses dismissing every single thing I say without providing any evidence of their own. Where is the general rule that says advanced creatures don't exist by default? Why the **** do I have to keep providing evidence after I've given so, so, so many?

Screw this, I don't need to convince any of you stubborn people who are clearly in denial because god knows why. We have literally a metric **** ton of evidence saying we're right, you guys have literally nothing and have been doing nothing except sitting on your asses screaming "not good enough" when you have absolutely nothing on your side of the argument, so I'm done.

I have given a ton of examples where d&d assumes advanced creatures exist by default. You guys have done NOTHING. LITERALLY NOTHING. So go ahead sit on your asses screaming "not good enough", I don't give a **** anymore. All I know is that I'm right, you guys are crying because god knows why, and the only thing that matters is that I know that I'm right.

Demanding evidence for a general rule when you've given none. Honestly holy crap.

Heres two:
1. As gogogome said advancement entries in monster statblocks are not option variant rules but strict RAW. Psyren's claim that the advancement entry of the monster's stat block is for DMs only is completely utterly and totally baseless, completely unsupported by any RAW, and the MM itself makes no differentiation whatsoever about which stat is for DMs and which stat is for players. And I have given tons of examples (EVERY SINGLE CONSTRUCT-ABLE CONSTRUCT IN EXISTENCE, Dwarven Ancestor, and Voor) of PLAYERS using the mother ****ing advancement entry of the monster stat block, NOT DM.
2. I have given a mountain of cases where d&d assumes advanced creatures exist.
Not good enough? Show me your proof of your general rule that says advanced creatures don't exist or **** off instead of passing your baseless unsupported **** as fact.

7hd red dragon exists because it has a statblock, 10hd red dragon exists because it has a stat block, but 8 and 9 hd red dragons don't exist because advancement entry of the stat block is only usable by DMs? Yeah, I'm done.

This is the last time I expect this forum to have people capable of having an objective debate.

@Psyren
Explain to me why 8 and 9hd red dragons don't exist. And give me evidence of your so called general rule where advanced monsters are a variant optional rule and d&d denies players from using it. Actually give me 10 so I can say not good enough to you 10 times.

[Crake]

So how do Mirror Mephits create simulacrums? Stop ignoring the fact that 100% of spells, even Fabricate, can have their material component ignored. We've had this argument before in another thread too. I'll repeat it here too.

Major and Minor Creation lets me create any vegetable matter, but its material component requires a tiny piece of the material to be created. So if I want to create grass i need a small amount of grass in my hand. Are you going to stand there and say that Major Creation fails when you use Eschew Materials to ignore the grass component because the spell wouldn't know what kind of material it's creating? And that I'm not deciding what material I create with major creation but my grass component is? And that every single creature with Minor or Major Creation as an SLA like Djinni can't ignore that material component?

If no then how the **** is Simulacrum any different? What the **** is so special about simulacrum's goddamn material component? How is deciding to create Iron without a piece of Iron any different than creating a Pit Fiend without a piece of Pit Fiend?

I am no longer going to respond to anyone saying simulacrum's material component is not ignorable especially since those people keep ignoring mirror mephits, both SLA and eschew material rule texts, and just plain common sense. Stop trying to make up whatever BS reason you can to try to defy RAW because whatever reason you come up with is gonna cause dysfunction elsewhere just like your reasoning caused a dysfunction with major and minor creation. Not to mention, your entire claim is completely and totally unsupported by any rule text in the game. At all. In fact it is mutually exclusive to every rule concerning material components in the game, and mutually exclusive with mirror mephits.

Mirror Mephit is a WotC sanctioned use of Simulacrum that completely ignores the material component so whatever reasoning you come up with to defy RAW is WRONG.

Simulacrum's material component is just that. A material component. It is no different than any other irrelevant material component in the game like bat poop for fireball and WotC itself ignored the material component. This is undeniable undisprovable FACT. So DEAL with it. Show me RAW that says simulacrum is a super mega ultra special material component that cannot be ignored by SLAs and epic feats alike or don't say anything at all.

I never said you couldn't ignore the material component, I said that without it the spell wouldn't know what to duplicate and you'd just have a clump of snow leftover at the end. When a material component actually determines the effect of a spell, it is required, even for SLAs, for example, trap the soul requires a gem worth 1000gp per HD. This gem sets the HD limit of the spell. You could cast the spell without the gem, but then the HD limit would be 0. This is demonstrated by the fact that brachina, who have trap the soul as an SLA, still require a gem for their trap the soul ability, fiendish codex II, page 135, last line of Typical Treasure, "When a pleasure devil is on a mission, it carries a gem of the appropriate value to cast trap the soul on a victim.". There is no specific mention in the SLA section, just that one quick line under treasure, which implies this is not something specific to the brachnia, it applies to anyone trying to use trap the soul. This then further implies that SLAs can optionally have material components, and in fact, must do so for spells whose effects are actively determined by their material components.

[gogogome]

I'm gonna call it quits for real this time. You made a great point gogogome, about how everyone here is sitting on their asses dismissing every single thing I say without providing any evidence of their own. Where is the general rule that says advanced creatures don't exist by default? Why the **** do I have to keep providing evidence after I've given so, so, so many?

Screw this, I don't need to convince any of you stubborn people who are clearly in denial because god knows why. We have literally a metric **** ton of evidence saying we're right, you guys have literally nothing and have been doing nothing except sitting on your asses screaming "not good enough" when you have absolutely nothing on your side of the argument, so I'm done.

I have given a ton of examples where d&d assumes advanced creatures exist by default. You guys have done NOTHING. LITERALLY NOTHING. So go ahead sit on your asses screaming "not good enough", I don't give a **** anymore. All I know is that I'm right, you guys are crying because god knows why, and the only thing that matters is that I know that I'm right.

Demanding evidence for a general rule when you've given none. Honestly holy crap.

Heres two:
1. As gogogome said advancement entries in monster statblocks are not option variant rules but strict RAW. Psyren's claim that the advancement entry of the monster's stat block is for DMs only is completely utterly and totally baseless, completely unsupported by any RAW, and the MM itself makes no differentiation whatsoever about which stat is for DMs and which stat is for players. And I have given tons of examples (EVERY SINGLE CONSTRUCT-ABLE CONSTRUCT IN EXISTENCE, Dwarven Ancestor, and Voor) of PLAYERS using the mother ****ing advancement entry of the monster stat block, NOT DM.
2. I have given a mountain of cases where d&d assumes advanced creatures exist.
Not good enough? Show me your proof of your general rule that says advanced creatures don't exist or **** off instead of passing your baseless unsupported **** as fact.

7hd red dragon exists because it has a statblock, 10hd red dragon exists because it has a stat block, but 8 and 9 hd red dragons don't exist because advancement entry of the stat block is only usable by DMs? Yeah, I'm done.

This is the last time I expect this forum to have people capable of having an objective debate.

@Psyren
Explain to me why 8 and 9hd red dragons don't exist. And give me evidence of your so called general rule where advanced monsters are a variant optional rule and d&d denies players from using it. Actually give me 10 so I can say not good enough to you 10 times.

You backing out would be a good idea as it seems you've reached your tantrum threshold.


I never said you couldn't ignore the material component, I said that without it the spell wouldn't know what to duplicate and you'd just have a clump of snow leftover at the end. When a material component actually determines the effect of a spell, it is required, even for SLAs, for example, trap the soul requires a gem worth 1000gp per HD. This gem sets the HD limit of the spell. You could cast the spell without the gem, but then the HD limit would be 0. This is demonstrated by the fact that brachina, who have trap the soul as an SLA, still require a gem for their trap the soul ability, fiendish codex II, page 135, last line of Typical Treasure, "When a pleasure devil is on a mission, it carries a gem of the appropriate value to cast trap the soul on a victim.". There is no specific mention in the SLA section, just that one quick line under treasure, which implies this is not something specific to the brachnia, it applies to anyone trying to use trap the soul. This then further implies that SLAs can optionally have material components, and in fact, must do so for spells whose effects are actively determined by their material components.

So you are saying creatures cannot ignore the material component of minor and major creation even when cast as an SLA?

And Ak’Chazars also has Trap the Soul as an SLA and makes no mention of material components. So Brachina is the exception to the norm, and is in no way suitable for extrapolation of rules.

And we have the mirror mephit ignoring the material component and creating Simulacra of PCs. You have once again ignored the mirror mephit. Please stop ignoring the mirror mephit. The mirror mephit proves you are completely incorrect and nothing you can say or do will change this fact so stop ignoring the mirror mephit and accept that you are incorrect.

I will repeat what I said in the Planar Binding is Slavery thread where you claim a straw bridging over the circle without touching it is disturbing it, defying the english language in the process. Your reasonings are not rule text, they are house rules you came up by yourself. Simulacrum's spell text makes 0 reference to the material component and Robo's analogy with minor creation is apt. Both spells don't reference their material components. Both spells require the material component to be different for each effect. So please use rule text instead of your rationalizations as your rationalizations are often completely opposite of the rule text.

[sorcererlover]

@RoboEmperor
For what it's worth I asked both my DMs about this and they said you were right. It wasn't even a hard decision.

They said Psyren saying advancement rules are for DM only were one of the dumbest things they've ever heard. And that advanced creatures not existing is also really dumb and pointed out dragons even before gogogome did, and how if colossal dragons exist because of increase in hd, why wouldn't huge pit fiends because of the same reason? Which is increased hit dice.

They said anyone trying to make the planar ally stuff sound like it's specific to the creature instead of an example of what you already can do are try hards like Psyren and redking.

And they said anyone who tried to make the material component sound like it was essential to the spell when the spell text makes absolutely no reference to the material component also try hards.

Having said that they told me they wouldn't let me do it because it was too powerful for the table, but one said he might next campaign when he wants to run a high op campaign but he would house rule a limit of 1 simulacrum at a time only.

So don't worry about trying to convince everyone. Anyone who isn't a tryhard can see that you're right.

[JNAProductions]

You have demonstrated five examples where monsters are given advanced forms but you extend it to all in the absence of a general rule. The thing is, nothing even guarantees that pit fiends are in a game. There is no general rule stating that every printed monsters exists at all.

Also you all are missing the obvious point: in spite of having an advancement line pit fiends cannot be advanced by outsider hit dice. The rule is:


Intelligent creatures that are not humanoid in shape, and nonintelligent monsters, can advance by increasing their Hit Dice. Creatures with increased Hit Dice are usually superior specimens of their race, bigger and more powerful than their run-of-the-mill fellows.

Note it says shape not type or appearance. Both winged and large sized humanoids exist and pit fiend is simply a hexapod humanoid in shape (like an avoral or a winged dragonborn or anyone with the dragon wings feat or a lesser tiefling/aasimar with the outsider wings feat) so thanks to the dysfunctional rules pit fiend can never advance by hit dice.

There's an explicit rule saying that you cannot advance creatures like Pit Fiends, since they're humanoid in shape and intelligent.

So, how do you resolve that?

[sorcererlover]

There's an explicit rule saying that you cannot advance creatures like Pit Fiends, since they're humanoid in shape and intelligent.

So, how do you resolve that?

This is another example of a try hard. You should ignore it instead of bending over backwards as you call it to accommodate them. Because things with wings and tail are humanoid right? No? Then lets put in non humanoid shaped creatures who have the humanoid type as a gateway to link creatures with wings and tails to the humanoid shape.

And this has nothing to do with whether simulacra can create advanced creatures or not. Nope. Just throw all the random **** you can hoping one will stick.

[JNAProductions]

This is another example of a try hard. You should ignore it instead of bending over backwards as you call it to accommodate them. Because things with wings and tail are humanoid right? No? Then lets put in non humanoid shaped creatures who have the humanoid type as a gateway to link creatures with wings and tails to the humanoid shape.

And this has nothing to do with whether simulacra can create advanced creatures or not. Nope. Just throw all the random **** you can hoping one will stick.

So, ignore the rules you don't like?

Or, maybe, just maybe, the rules aren't written super well, especially in regards to interacting with one another, and you should focus on what's fun for the table instead of trying to stick to RAW 100%.

Related note: There are nine dysfunction threads for 3.5.

[ZamielVanWeber]

m, Robo's Planar Ally example was enough to convince me that he is right back when he made his Planar Binding is Slavery thread. If this and dragons and golems and Cosmic Descryer and the fact that the advancement entry is not an optional or variant rule is not enough to convince you then I must put you on the same boat as redking.

By the strictest possible RAW, neither side is correct . The rule is unclear due to this:

However, there are several methods by which extraordinary or unique monsters can be created using a typical creature as the foundation: by adding character classes, increasing a monster’s Hit Dice, or by adding a template to a monster
Emphasis mine. Can, as a verb, means
used to indicate possibility or
be inherently able or designed to and thus the general rule we have here can be reasonably read as either: "...there are several methods by which extraordinary or unique monsters [are possibly created] using..." or "...there are several methods by which extraordinary or unique monsters [are designed to] be created using..."

Listing examples is pointless as in DnD specific rules always trumps the general, such as the hover feat allowing creatures with average maneuverability to hover when the general rule says they cannot. Cosmic Descryer creates a singular specific exception, let alone hundreds, to the general rule. What this proves is that specific exceptions to general rules exist and are valid, not that general rules do not. Hover the feat existing does not mean all flyers are automatically able to hover.

It is important to note that the general rule for advancement only happens on character creation, so players would only be able to use it upon creating a player character (which is literally in the name) and DM's could only use it upon creating a non-player character (again, in the name). Whether or not creating your own creatures would vary from game to game as no rule cleanly defines what is a player character and what is a non-player character beyond their nominal controllers so you would need to work that out with a DM anyways.

Edit:


This is another example of a try hard. You should ignore it instead of bending over backwards as you call it to accommodate them. Because things with wings and tail are humanoid right? No? Then lets put in non humanoid shaped creatures who have the humanoid type as a gateway to link creatures with wings and tails to the humanoid shape.

And this has nothing to do with whether simulacra can create advanced creatures or not. Nope. Just throw all the random **** you can hoping one will stick.

In a discussion hyper-focused on RAW it is important to consider what RAW says. In an RAI game the 36 HD pit fiend will vary from DM to DM and everyone will have a sensible chuckle at the poorly written rule since they meant humanoid type not humanoid shape. Also note that humans, in our real, meat-space, world, are sometimes born with short tails that are normally removed shortly after birth so tails are very much part of "humanoid shape." I am going to back to original general rule that covers the topic at hand in order to try to lend an objective voice. Quite frankly I could not care less who is right; I have no personal stake in it. I do care about figuring out the most accurate truth of the matter because that is of pure academic interest to me. Consider that this entire debate is predicated on the fact that some designers put out material components for pure fluff and others put them in as real restrictions on spell casting and these to sides never sat down and collated their design ideas so that Eschew Materials wouldn't randomly become a serious issue with a large number of spells.

[Crake]

And we have the mirror mephit ignoring the material component and creating Simulacra of PCs. You have once again ignored the mirror mephit. Please stop ignoring the mirror mephit. The mirror mephit proves you are completely incorrect and nothing you can say or do will change this fact so stop ignoring the mirror mephit and accept that you are incorrect.

I'm not ignoring the mirror mephit, everything I've said has been in regards to ignoring the material component of simulacrum, which is something they can do, though I will comment on the irony that someone mentioned the scroll of simulacrum from a module requiring a material component despite being a scroll, and was shot down because it was from a module, but then, mirror mephits are also from a module.

My whole point is, while you can ignore the material component, doing so will result in the spell lacking the context to create the desired simulacrum.

[gogogome]

My whole point is, while you can ignore the material component, doing so will result in the spell lacking the context to create the desired simulacrum.

I will repeat again. Is this your opinion of how minor and major creation works?

[gogogome]

By the strictest possible RAW, neither side is correct . The rule is unclear due to this:

Emphasis mine. Can, as a verb, means or and thus the general rule we have here can be reasonably read as either: "...there are several methods by which extraordinary or unique monsters [are possibly created] using..." or "...there are several methods by which extraordinary or unique monsters [are designed to] be created using..."

Listing examples is pointless as in DnD specific rules always trumps the general, such as the hover feat allowing creatures with average maneuverability to hover when the general rule says they cannot. Cosmic Descryer creates a singular specific exception, let alone hundreds, to the general rule. What this proves is that specific exceptions to general rules exist and are valid, not that general rules do not. Hover the feat existing does not mean all flyers are automatically able to hover.

It is important to note that the general rule for advancement only happens on character creation, so players would only be able to use it upon creating a player character (which is literally in the name) and DM's could only use it upon creating a non-player character (again, in the name). Whether or not creating your own creatures would vary from game to game as no rule cleanly defines what is a player character and what is a non-player character beyond their nominal controllers so you would need to work that out with a DM anyways..

How is a dragon a specific example that trumps general? What general thing are dragons trumping? The topic at hand is not whether creatures can be advanced or not. It's whether advanced creatures exist or not. Advanced Dragons exist all the way up to size colossal. So why wouldn't a huge sized pit fiend also exist? What general rule is the dragon entry defying with specific v.s. general? If all dragons of all advanced hd exist then likewise all creatures of all advanced hd should also exist because there is nothing differentiating between a dragon's advancement entry and a pit fiend's advancement entry.

[sorcererlover]

So, ignore the rules you don't like?

Or, maybe, just maybe, the rules aren't written super well, especially in regards to interacting with one another, and you should focus on what's fun for the table instead of trying to stick to RAW 100%.

Related note: There are nine dysfunction threads for 3.5.

I'm not ignoring anything. I'm pointing out that you people are calling a lizard with claws tails and wings a humanoid.

[JNAProductions]

I'm not ignoring anything. I'm pointing out that you people are calling a lizard with claws tails and wings a humanoid.

It has two legs and two arms, as well as a head atop that.

It walks bipedal.

It has the general shape of a humanoid-that's all that rule requires. Not the humanoid type, not humanoid biology, just looks humanoid. And this:

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/forgottenrealms/images/d/d3/Monster_Manual_35_-_Pit_fiend%2C_Bone_devil_-_p57_-_Sam_wood.jpg

Looks humanoid in shape. They both do. So, if we're treating RAW as the law of the land, no breaking it, absolutely nothing can violate it...

They can't advance by anything other than class levels.

[sorcererlover]

It has two legs and two arms, as well as a head atop that.

It walks bipedal.

It has the general shape of a humanoid-that's all that rule requires. Not the humanoid type, not humanoid biology, just looks humanoid. And this:

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/forgottenrealms/images/d/d3/Monster_Manual_35_-_Pit_fiend%2C_Bone_devil_-_p57_-_Sam_wood.jpg

Looks humanoid in shape. They both do. So, if we're treating RAW as the law of the land, no breaking it, absolutely nothing can violate it...

They can't advance by anything other than class levels.

Is the definition of a humanoid just being bipedal? I thought humanoid shape didn't have wings and a tail or giant feet and giant hands. If an archaeologist found a pit fiend skeleton, would he describe such a skeleton as humanoid? Or more like a dragon?

A squirrel can stand on two hind legs and use its hands for holding acorns. Does that mean squirrels are humanoids too? How about moles?

You are stretching the word humanoid way too far. If you give a picture of a Pit Fiend to a person who never seen one before they won't say it's humanoid. They might for doppelganger or giant but not for Pit Fiend. Lizard with wings is not humanoid.

[Crake]

I will repeat again. Is this your opinion of how minor and major creation works?


Material Component

A tiny piece of matter of the same sort of item you plan to create with minor creation.

In this case, the caster is deciding the item, and the material component follows.

Minor creation says "I want to create wood, thus I need wood", but simulacrum isn't "I want to duplicate John from down the road, thus I need a piece of john from down the road", it's "I have a piece of john from down the road, thus my simulacrum is john from down the road".

[JNAProductions]

So Dragonborn with wings and a tail aren't humanoids? But they even have the humanoid type!

If you handed that picture and asked them the question the rule asks, which is "Is this thing shaped like a humanoid?" they're probably say yes.

[gogogome]

In this case, the caster is deciding the item, and the material component follows.

Minor creation says "I want to create wood, thus I need wood", but simulacrum isn't "I want to duplicate John from down the road, thus I need a piece of john from down the road", it's "I have a piece of john from down the road, thus my simulacrum is john from down the road".

What does that have to do with the spell needing a material component as a blue print to know what you are creating? The spell doesn't know what Iron is. It needs the material component to copy. Without Iron DNA how the hell does the spell know how to create Iron?

If you can decide to create iron and supply iron or ignore it, there's no reason why you can't decide to create John and supply a piece of John or ignore it. You have no basis for your claim that simulacrum's material component comes first. Nothing in the spell description references the material component just like how minor creation does not reference the material component. Nowhere does it say for minor creation the decision comes first and for simulacrum the material component comes first. All this is your way of trying to come up with a reason to try to nerf a powerful spell but stopping the same reason from nerfing an average spell.

And an adventure module using a scroll that requires the piece of creature is irrelevant. The question is can you create a simulacrum of a creature without a piece of it? The answer is yes. Mirror Mephit proves it. Whether that simulacrum scroll required an additional material component after creation is completely irrelevant to the fact that a creature accomplished creating simulacra without a piece of the creature. If john can lift a brick while jenny can't, is the brick liftable by a human? The answer is yes because you only need one case to prove that your claim that simulacrum fails without material components is false.

There is no RAW text that says the spell fails without a material component.
Nothing in the simulacrum spell description references the simulacrum material component.
There is no RAW text that says for minor creation the decision comes first yet for simulacrum the material component (which is never referenced) comes first.
There is no RAW text that says you can ignore the material component blue print for minor creation but not for simulacrum.
There are no official examples of creatures failing to cast simulacrum as an SLA without a material component. There is an official example that does the exact opposite.

There is simply nothing, no rule text, no official examples, or even logic, that supports anything that you've said.

You can cast any spell that has a material component costing 1 gp or less without needing that component.
Casting the spell and gaining the desired effect without needing that component means you are so good at casting simulacrum you can create simulacra of john without needing a piece of john. How is being so good at casting spells that you don't need a piece of john to create a simulacrum a john result in spell failure?

Why is this interpretation wrong and why is your interpretation right? What piece of rule text says you're right and that I'm wrong? Why can't you be so good at casting simulacrum that you don't need a piece of john to create john? And how come you say minor creation does not need a blueprint material component while simulacrum absolutely does?

There is an official example of a creature successfully casting simulacrum without a piece of the creature. Ravenloft's scroll has nothing to do with this accomplishment.
The RAW does not specify any penalty for using eschew materials to forgo the requirement of that material component.
The spell does not use the material component in anyway. It doesn't say it grows a creature from the nail clipping.
The RAW actually supports forgoing the requirement of the material component. It doesn't say "ignore", it says "you don't need it".

There is simply nothing, no rule text, no official example, or even logic, that supports anything that you've said.

Please give us something official, not something you concocted, that supports your claim, instead of making up stuff like how minor creation decides first and can ignore its material component blueprint while simulacrum must use its material component blueprint first before deciding.

[redking]

I will repeat again. Is this your opinion of how minor and major creation works?

No. You can eschew material components or ignore material components for these spells. The fact that you can ignore material components for these spells does not mean that a simulacrum need not be a duplicate of a creature, as specifically called out in the spell.

[sorcererlover]

So Dragonborn with wings and a tail aren't humanoids? But they even have the humanoid type!

If you handed that picture and asked them the question the rule asks, which is "Is this thing shaped like a humanoid?" they're probably say yes.

All I see is someone saying green and blue is identical because cyan looks like blue and green looks like cyan.

What does humanoid type have to do with humanoid shape? If you're doing that then why can't I say pit fiends are outsider shape because they have the outsider type? Dragonborn is dragon shape not humanoid shape.

Why is humanoid shape the only classification? How about "monster" shape? I'm pretty sure even angels would be considered monster shape because wings aren't normal.

[redking]

Something good came out of this thread. Introducing THE SIMULACRIST (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?588403-The-Simulacrist-A-simulacrum-spell-based-prestige-class&p=23920821#post23920821) prestige class!

[JNAProductions]

All I see is someone saying green and blue is identical because cyan looks like blue and green looks like cyan.

What does humanoid type have to do with humanoid shape? If you're doing that then why can't I say pit fiends are outsider shape because they have the outsider type? Dragonborn is dragon shape not humanoid shape.

Why is humanoid shape the only classification? How about "monster" shape? I'm pretty sure even angels would be considered monster shape because wings aren't normal.

Did you just say Dragonborn are Dragon-shaped?

Thees guys?

https://i.stack.imgur.com/qTnfe.jpg

They're not humanoid? They even have the humanoid type!

Moreover, I think everyone can agree that Pit Fiends are not HUMAN in appearance, and that wasn't the point. They at least look humanoid-monstrous, to be sure, but still humanoid in general figure. If you disqualify Pit Fiends from looking humanoid, you disqualify Dragonborn (and probably lots of other races to boot) that actually have the type.

And, honestly, the main point is just that WotC did NOT do a good job designing 3.5. It's a fun game, but good lord does it have its issues. So treating RAW like a gospel that shall not be deviated from even the slightest bit... It's a recipe for an unfun game in many cases.

How many games are IMPROVED by allowing you to create a simulacrum of a 36 or more HD Pit Fiend by using Eschew Materials? How many games are improved by allowing the same thing, only templated to hell and back? Because those don't add HD, and therefore are effectively free on your Sim-or at least no more expensive than the basic Sim costs.

[RoboEmperor]

How many games are IMPROVED by allowing you to create a simulacrum of a 36 or more HD Pit Fiend by using Eschew Materials? How many games are improved by allowing the same thing, only templated to hell and back? Because those don't add HD, and therefore are effectively free on your Sim-or at least no more expensive than the basic Sim costs.

This I can answer as I actually did this in a game before. The answer is: a lot. It's planar binding without all the baggage. I'm getting my Paeliryon (not pit fiend as I like paeliryon more) one way or another via Greater Planar Binding or Simulacrum, and choosing to pay 1,800xp to get one that doesn't require the DM to try and stab us in the back was well accepted by all. Literally no one gave a damn or even questioned the possibility of this especially since at our table each player can solo a creature +2 CR than their level so I was actually the weakest member of the party. because meteor swarm ain't all that. And everyone loved the free mind blanks.

[Doctor Awkward]

The spell is poorly defined. You're supposed to remove anything not appropriate to the level or hit dice, which may or may not include spell-like abilities

False.

As is noted under spell-like abilities (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#spellLikeAbilities):

For creatures with spell-like abilities, a designated caster level defines how difficult it is to dispel their spell-like effects and to define any level-dependent variables (such as range and duration) the abilities might have. The creature’s caster level never affects which spell-like abilities the creature has; sometimes the given caster level is lower than the level a spellcasting character would need to cast the spell of the same name. If no caster level is specified, the caster level is equal to the creature’s Hit Dice.

So regardless of how many hit dice such a creature is reduced to, it's selection of spell-like abilities will never change. The only thing that might change is the caster level of those abilities, which in virtually all cases would logically be halved like everything else about the creature.

[Psyren]

Which Robo repeatedly pointed out that Cosmic Descryer does not advance the hd of creatures but instead summons an already advanced creature.

The general rule for advancing monsters is in the Monster Manual, and is invoked at the DM's option. Cosmic Descryer is, at best, a specific exception to that general rule. (It also requires your campaign to even be using Epic rules to exist.) That's about as plainly as I can put my position on this.



@Psyren
Explain to me why 8 and 9hd red dragons don't exist.

True Dragons are another special case as they "advance" through age categories; Pit Fiends do not.


False.

As is noted under spell-like abilities (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#spellLikeAbilities):


So regardless of how many hit dice such a creature is reduced to, it's selection of spell-like abilities will never change. The only thing that might change is the caster level of those abilities, which in virtually all cases would logically be halved like everything else about the creature.

Except simulacrum doesn't change caster level, it changes hit dice:

"It appears to be the same as the original, but it has only one-half of the real creature’s levels or Hit Dice (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD)."

Caster level is a function of levels/HD, but it is not the thing that the spell modifies directly.

And from the quote above: note the phrase "the real creature." More proof that the thing you're duplicating has to actually exist before you can, well, duplicate it.

[gogogome]

The general rule for advancing monsters is in the Monster Manual, and is invoked at the DM's option. Cosmic Descryer is, at best, a specific exception to that general rule. (It also requires your campaign to even be using Epic rules to exist.) That's about as plainly as I can put my position on this.

We are debating whether all advanced creatures exist or not. Invoking advancement rules have absolutely nothing to do with this fact. So why do you keep repeating it?

The reason we keep bringing up Cosmic Descryer is because Cosmic Descryer does not advance creatures. It literally does not affect any creature. It summons already advanced creatures. The special exception is that it summons advanced creatures not that it advances creatures. How can the existence of 246 different kinds of advanced creatures be a special exception from a PrC that doesn't affect creatures? Does the Cosmic Descryer PrC instantaneously advance 246 different kinds of creatures simultaneously? How many times do I have to repeat this to you? If Cosmic Descryer PrC does not advance any creature, then all creatures the Cosmic Descryer summons exists therefore you are wrong that advanced creatures don't exist. How is invoking advancement rules have any relevance to this fact?

Also where does it say it is invoked at the DM's option? It doesn't mention the DM at all. Please provide proof that it is invoked at the DM's option only. I have literally read the entire section top to bottom and it never differentiates between a player choosing to increase the strength of one of his monsters, or a DM.There are so many things that players can do that advance creature hit die. Golems. Constructs. Hommunculi. Voors. Dwarven Ancestors.

What does this have anything to do whether advanced creatures exist in d&d or not?



True Dragons are another special case as they "advance" through age categories; Pit Fiends do not.

How is the method of advancement relevant? If all dragon advancement hd exists, why wouldn't other creature's advancement hd? Why do dragons get special treatment on whether their advanced versions exist or not? I don't see a separate rule entry for dragon advancement. Even in the Dragon's section of both the Srd and MM I do not see anything differentiating advanced dragons with other advanced creatures. Please show where it says dragon advancement is a special exception.

[sorcererlover]

Do you even understand what we are debating about? We are debating whether all advanced creatures exist or not. Invoking advancement rules have absolutely nothing to do with this fact. So why do you keep repeating it?

The reason we keep bringing up Cosmic Descryer is because Cosmic Descryer does not advance creatures. It literally does not affect any creature. It summons already advanced creatures. The special exception is that it summons advanced creatures not that it advances creatures. How can the existence of 246 different kinds of advanced creatures be a special exception from a PrC that doesn't affect creatures? Does the Cosmic Descryer PrC instantaneously advance 246 different kinds of creatures simultaneously? How many times do I have to repeat this to you? If Cosmic Descryer PrC does not advance any creature, then all creatures the Cosmic Descryer summons exists therefore you are wrong that advanced creatures don't exist. How is invoking advancement rules have any relevance to this fact?

Also where does it say it is invoked at the DM's option? It doesn't mention the DM at all. Please provide proof that it is invoked at the DM's option only. I have literally read the entire section top to bottom and it never differentiates between a player choosing to increase the strength of one of his monsters, or a DM.There are so many things that players can do that advance creature hit die. Golems. Constructs. Hommunculi. Voors. Dwarven Ancestors.

What does this have anything to do whether advanced creatures exist in d&d or not?




How is the method of advancement relevant? If all dragon advancement hd exists, why wouldn't other creature's advancement hd? Why do dragons get special treatment on whether their advanced versions exist or not? I don't see a separate rule entry for dragon advancement. Even in the Dragon's section of both the Srd and MM I do not see anything differentiating advanced dragons with other advanced creatures. Please show where it says dragon advancement is a special exception.

Let me explain Psyren's entire argument.

1. Advancement rules can only be used by DM. Therefore if the DM doesn't invoke those rules then advanced creatures do not exist.
2. Dragons are a special exception because I say so. I'm not gonna cite any RAW because none exists and I don't want to admit that.
3. Golems are a special exception because I say so. I'm not gonna cite any RAW because none exists and I don't want to admit that.
4. Voors are a special exception because I say so. I'm not gonna cite any RAW because none exists and I don't want to admit that.
5. Cosmic Descryer is a special exception because I say so. I'm not gonna cite any RAW because none exists and I don't want to admit that. I'm not going to even answer what this is a special exception of.
6. Dwarven Ancestor is a special exception because I say so. I'm not gonna cite any RAW because none exists and I don't want to admit that.
7. Nowhere in the MM does it say only DMs can invoke advancement rules. But it is only invokable by DMs because I say so. I'm not gonna cite any RAW because none exists and I don't want to admit that. And everything that proves me wrong is a special exception because I say so. And I'm not gonna cite any RAW because none exists and I don't want to admit that.

No matter how many examples and rules you throw his way that shows he is wrong he will just call every single one of them a special exception. So stop arguing with him and let this thread die.

[magicalmagicman]

The general rule for advancing monsters is in the Monster Manual, and is invoked at the DM's option.

I have a question. If I'm playing a monster creature with level adjustment, can I use the advancing rules in the monster manual? Or does the DM level up for me and I have no choice in the matter? Or are monster creatures with level adjustment also "special exceptions"?

[Crake]

False.

As is noted under spell-like abilities (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#spellLikeAbilities):


So regardless of how many hit dice such a creature is reduced to, it's selection of spell-like abilities will never change. The only thing that might change is the caster level of those abilities, which in virtually all cases would logically be halved like everything else about the creature.

This isn't necessarily true. For creatures that have savage progressions, the logical choice would be to put them at the last savage progression that had half HD, or simply halfway through the savage progression, seeing as they're treated as class levels, and simulacrum says they get half their class levels.

[redking]

Here is a Q&A with James Jacobs (https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ljov?Simulacrum#10) (co-creator of Pathfinder) in relation to simulacrums. Here he gives detail, and mentions that he regrets that the Pathfinder game dropped the requirement for the piece of a creature to cast the spell.

If ignore a material component allows you to duplicate any generic creature, then all of the NPC statblocks in the DMG are fair game too.

[RoboEmperor]

This isn't necessarily true. For creatures that have savage progressions, the logical choice would be to put them at the last savage progression that had half HD, or simply halfway through the savage progression, seeing as they're treated as class levels, and simulacrum says they get half their class levels.

Yeah, Savage Species is the reason I don't like to used halved stats because the DM needs to homebrew what half creatures look like. Savage Species is RAW too and if all those example creatures have their stuff butchered until they reach full hd, then the DM can butcher the stats of any half hd creature he wants.

[gogogome]

Let me explain Psyren's entire argument.

1. Advancement rules can only be used by DM. Therefore if the DM doesn't invoke those rules then advanced creatures do not exist.
2. Dragons are a special exception because I say so. I'm not gonna cite any RAW because none exists and I don't want to admit that.
3. Golems are a special exception because I say so. I'm not gonna cite any RAW because none exists and I don't want to admit that.
4. Voors are a special exception because I say so. I'm not gonna cite any RAW because none exists and I don't want to admit that.
5. Cosmic Descryer is a special exception because I say so. I'm not gonna cite any RAW because none exists and I don't want to admit that. I'm not going to even answer what this is a special exception of.
6. Dwarven Ancestor is a special exception because I say so. I'm not gonna cite any RAW because none exists and I don't want to admit that.
7. Nowhere in the MM does it say only DMs can invoke advancement rules. But it is only invokable by DMs because I say so. I'm not gonna cite any RAW because none exists and I don't want to admit that. And everything that proves me wrong is a special exception because I say so. And I'm not gonna cite any RAW because none exists and I don't want to admit that.

No matter how many examples and rules you throw his way that shows he is wrong he will just call every single one of them a special exception. So stop arguing with him and let this thread die.

If this is not an exaggeration then the discussion is finished.


I have a question. If I'm playing a monster creature with level adjustment, can I use the advancing rules in the monster manual? Or does the DM level up for me and I have no choice in the matter? Or are monster creatures with level adjustment also "special exceptions"?

Another excellent example showing how ludicrous Psyren's position is.

[Psyren]

Let me explain Psyren's entire argument.

Nice of you but I'm good.


I have a question. If I'm playing a monster creature with level adjustment, can I use the advancing rules in the monster manual? Or does the DM level up for me and I have no choice in the matter? Or are monster creatures with level adjustment also "special exceptions"?

Given that playing a monster race at all requires DM allowance, presumably they would lay out their intentions for your advancement at that time. DMG:

"You can give your players new race options either by using creatures from the Monster Manual or new creatures of your own design. In either case, handle this radical change to the campaign with care."

[magicalmagicman]

Given that playing a monster race at all requires DM allowance, presumably they would lay out their intentions for your advancement at that time. DMG:

"You can give your players new race options either by using creatures from the Monster Manual or new creatures of your own design. In either case, handle this radical change to the campaign with care."

You're quoting the section in the DMG that describes homebrewing new races not monsters with level adjustment.

[Psyren]

You're quoting the section in the DMG that describes homebrewing new races not monsters with level adjustment.

No, it's part of the section that talks about level adjustment - DMG 171-172. The "New" in "New Races" means "races not in the PHB." That's why it's also referring to the Monster Manual, nothing in there is homebrewed.

[magicalmagicman]

No, it's part of the section that talks about level adjustment - DMG 171-172. The "New" in "New Races" means "races not in the PHB." That's why it's also referring to the Monster Manual, nothing in there is homebrewed.

I'm confused. Everything outside core requires DM approval to be in the game. Everything in core requires DM approval to be in game. Is your argument: "The DM can ban, allow, homebrew, and house rule anything so none of the d&d rules matter?" Because then we're not talking about the d&d, we're talking about a specific game world created by a specific DM.

If you're saying that advanced creatures don't exist in a specific game world created by you, then you're right.

[Psyren]

I don't think that none of the rules matter. Rather, I think that some can't be assumed to be baseline. Advanced versions of monsters fall into that category. And I've already said to the OP that the main thing that matters is whether his DM has made those available, not this thread. None of the rest of us get a say.

I'd say the same about monsters with class levels, to refer to a previous example. They certainly can exist, it doesn't mean that they absolutely do.

[magicalmagicman]

I don't think that none of the rules matter. Rather, I think that some can't be assumed to be baseline. Advanced versions of monsters fall into that category. And I've already said to the OP that the main thing that matters is whether his DM has made those available, not this thread. None of the rest of us get a say.

I'd say the same about monsters with class levels, to refer to a previous example. They certainly can exist, it doesn't mean that they absolutely do.


Prestige classes are purely optional and always under the purview of the DM. We encourage you, as the DM, to tightly limit the prestige classes available in your campaign. The example prestige classes are certainly not all encompassing or definitive. They might not even be appropriate for your campaign. The best prestige classes for your campaign are the ones you tailor make yourself.

So just to be clear, you're also saying the existence of PrCs cannot be assumed to be baseline? Because I disagree with that.

[Psyren]

So just to be clear, you're also saying the existence of PrCs cannot be assumed to be baseline? Because I disagree with that.

Do you consider PrCs, playable monsters, and modified monsters to be on equal footing at most tables? I think there's a lack of nuance there myself.

[magicalmagicman]

Do you consider PrCs, playable monsters, and modified monsters to be on equal footing at most tables? I think there's a lack of nuance there myself.

Yes. If there are clear rules that aren't variant it has equal footing at all tables. Even broken stuff like BoVD's sacrifice rules have equal footing at all tables.

And why are we talking about "most tables"? We're talking about d&d aren't we? A world where all 1st party content is included? If we're talking about the OP's game world then we're not talking about d&d, we're talking about the OP's game world.

[gogogome]

https://media.giphy.com/media/xT9DPJVjlYHwWsZRxm/giphy.gif

We were arguing with someone who believes even core-only isn't baseline.

And this revelation doesn't change the fact he arbitrarily declared advanced dragons to be baseline without citing any rules while saying other advanced creatures are not because dragons advance by age.

I would also like to point out dragons require the advancement rules just as much as any other creature. MM does not give stats for any dragon. You have to homebrew their feat and skill allocation just like Pit Fiends yet advanced dragons are baseline and other advanced creatures are not.

[Psyren]

Yes. If there are clear rules that aren't variant it has equal footing at all tables. Even broken stuff like BoVD's sacrifice rules have equal footing at all tables.

Then by that rationale, yes, all PrCs would require specific DM approval since that is what the rule says. I personally think PrCs can be assumed a bit more readily than playable monsters, but I acknowledge there could be table variation there.


And why are we talking about "most tables"? We're talking about d&d aren't we? A world where all 1st party content is included?

Just because something is printed in a 1st party source doesn't mean it is baseline. Custom items are 1st party. Variant rules like Spell Points are 1st party. 1st party monsters can have 1st party class levels.

[magicalmagicman]

Just because something is printed in a 1st party source doesn't mean it is baseline. Custom items are 1st party. Variant rules like Spell Points are 1st party. 1st party monsters can have 1st party class levels.

Custom items are explicitly said to be "estimations". Variant Rules are labeled "variant rules" meaning they are not baseline. I'm someone who believes all 1st party material that is not a variant rules or requires homebrew to be baseline. For example, someone mentioned savage species, I believe every official savage progression in that book is baseline and any savage progression the DM homebrewed using the book as a guideline is not baseline.

[magicalmagicman]

Rather than argue what is baseline and what is not, I'll just throw in my 2cents and say I agree with gogogome that you are being arbitrary and unfair when you say advanced dragons that use advancing rules are baseline while other advanced creatures that use advancing rules are not baseline and that even in a core-only setting advanced creatures are baseline.

[magicalmagicman]

Oh and one more thing. I believe it is the DM that advances Dwarven Ancestors, but the player can still call Dwarven Ancestors of any hd he wants so all the advanced versions of Dwarven Ancestors are baseline regardless of whether DMs invokes the advancement rules or not. So I agree with gogogome there too that whether advancement rules being exclusive to DMs or not does not matter.

[Psyren]

Rather than argue what is baseline and what is not, I'll just throw in my 2cents and say I agree with gogogome that you are being arbitrary and unfair when you say advanced dragons that use advancing rules are baseline while other advanced creatures that use advancing rules are not baseline and that even in a core-only setting advanced creatures are baseline.

I don't think Dragons being unique is arbitrary at all. Living (mortal) creatures age, and true dragons are some of the only ones that advance automatically when they do. Thus by allowing dragons at all - which are baseline - that phenomenon is incorporated.

None of that applies to Pit Fiends. We don't know if they age at all, and even if they do, we don't have any kind of DM-agnostic tie between that and their advancement.

[magicalmagicman]

I don't think Dragons being unique is arbitrary at all. Living (mortal) creatures age, and true dragons are some of the only ones that advance automatically when they do. Thus by allowing dragons at all - which are baseline - that phenomenon is incorporated.

None of that applies to Pit Fiends. We don't know if they age at all, and even if they do, we don't have any kind of DM-agnostic tie between that and their advancement.

You are saying true dragon's advancement entry in their stat block is incorporated because they advance through aging but not monsters with LA because they advance by XP instead of aging. Saying only creatures that advance through aging have their advanced forms included in the baseline is arbitrary. Why are creatures who advance through xp denied? Living mortals also gain xp. Thus if you allow any creature with LA to exist the phenomenon should also be incorporated.

[Doctor Awkward]

Except simulacrum doesn't change caster level, it changes hit dice:

"It appears to be the same as the original, but it has only one-half of the real creature’s levels or Hit Dice (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD)."

...And, as it noted... a creature's selection of SLA's never changes, regardless of it's caster level, which is tied directly to hit dice unless otherwise specified.



Caster level is a function of levels/HD, but it is not the thing that the spell modifies directly.


...
I mean, you are essentially arguing for not changing the caster level of the simulacrum's SLA's if said CL is listed independently of hit dice, on account of the spell only halving the specifically listed statistics. Which is fine, so long as everyone realizes that makes the spell far more powerful than it probably ought to be.

[Psyren]

You are saying true dragon's advancement entry in their stat block is incorporated because they advance through aging but not monsters with LA because they advance by XP instead of aging. Saying only creatures that advance through aging have their advanced forms included in the baseline is arbitrary.

If it is arbitrary, it's hardly my fault. I'm not the one who tied true dragons' advancement to their aging and not that of pit fiends.


Living mortals also gain xp.

Player characters do, as an award from the DM, yes.


...And, as it noted... a creature's selection of SLA's never changes, regardless of it's caster level, which is tied directly to hit dice unless otherwise specified.

SLAs never change regardless of caster level =/= SLAs never change regardless of hit dice. Especially since Simulacrum specifically says it affects the resulting creatures' special abilities. SLAs are a special ability, as are supernatural and extraordinary abilities.

[Crake]

Custom items are explicitly said to be "estimations". Variant Rules are labeled "variant rules" meaning they are not baseline. I'm someone who believes all 1st party material that is not a variant rules or requires homebrew to be baseline. For example, someone mentioned savage species, I believe every official savage progression in that book is baseline and any savage progression the DM homebrewed using the book as a guideline is not baseline.

I think you'll find that that entire chapter is literally variant rules, as outlined in the sidebar "Variant: No sidebars for variant rules" which is quite literally on the same page (p171).


In contrast to the way the rest of the Dungeon Master’s Guide is structured, this chapter is composed of alternative rules, concepts, and ways of doing things. So, in this chapter, you won’t find variant rules set off in sidebars—the variant rules are actually the meat of the chapter. Sidebars are used in this chapter for “Behind the Curtain” topics, just as in the rest of the book.

Also, dragon advancement is baseline because it quite clearly explains how a dragon advances: by age. If a dragon is 300 years old, it is X age category, etc etc. A pit fiend on the other hand has no explicit means of advancement. Is it number of souls collected? Is it experience? Is it age? Nobody knows for sure, so it comes down to the DM's decision.


Oh and one more thing. I believe it is the DM that advances Dwarven Ancestors, but the player can still call Dwarven Ancestors of any hd he wants so all the advanced versions of Dwarven Ancestors are baseline regardless of whether DMs invokes the advancement rules or not. So I agree with gogogome there too that whether advancement rules being exclusive to DMs or not does not matter.

That's not correct, because "18HD dwarven ancestor" is not a kind of creature. "The kind of creature to be bound must be known and stated." The only way to guarantee an advanced version is to know the name of an advanced version. But likewise, you may just call a standard version, and recieve an advanced one by luck/accident (obviously up to the HD limit of the spell you're casting).

[magicalmagicman]

If it is arbitrary, it's hardly my fault. I'm not the one who tied true dragons' advancement to their aging and not that of pit fiends.

The game isn't being arbitrary. You're being arbitrary. You're arbitrary for saying creatures who advance with time are baseline and that creatures who advance with XP are not baseline because the rules don't make such a distinction. You're making the distinction, not the game. So you're being arbitrary, not the game.


Player characters do, as an award from the DM, yes.

We have lots of creatures with LA with class levels. Like Hound Archon hero. So NPCs do gain xp. So there's no reason why advanced creatures with LA wouldn't be in baseline. If a level 10 paladin hound archon is baseline why isn't 16hd hound archons baseline?

No offense but I think you know you're wrong and you're just dancing around the issue ignoring everything other people say to refuse to admit your error because you don't like simulacrum. I'm feeling the same frustration with you as I'm guessing others before me also felt.

I showed in post 128 that the basis of your argument, that advanced creatures aren't baseline because only the DM invokes the advancement rules, is wrong because even if you're right, if a player wants to call an advanced dwarven ancestor, he can because the rules say they can. You ignored this post. You did not respond to it when it destroys the entire foundation of your position. And we can't have a discussion about it because you don't respond to anything that proves you wrong. Whether or not only the DM can make use of advancement rules is not related in anyway to whether advanced creatures are baseline because players can just ask for an advanced creature and get one even if he doesn't advance it himself.

Other people have pointed out the rules don't make any distinction between creatures who advance with time or with xp. You're making the distinction, not the rules, which is why you're arbitrary, not the rules. And you refused to respond to their points. Where does the rules make the distinction between time advanced creatures and xp advanced creatures?

Other people have pointed out the rules make use of advanced creatures everywhere including greater golems, advanced creatures like Voor Dreadful Lasher, and creatures with LA who have class levels. You're the one saying everything mentioned here is a special case. The rules don't. There is no general rule to be made a special exception from. You are making the distinction, not the rules. You're saying there is a general rule, not the rules. And when people ask you to show them where the rules make the distinction, you ignore them. Please show us the general rule that says advanced creatures aren't baseline unless noted otherwise because I can't find the rule and your previous reasoning is destroyed by the fact players can call advanced creatures that are advanced by the DM.

So in conclusion, you're making all of these distinctions up, not the game, you act as if the game is making the distinctions when they aren't and ignore anyone who asks for a citation, and you ignore everyone who makes legitimate points that destroy your position, which is why I believe you're wrong and quite frustrating to debate with.


That's not correct, because "18HD dwarven ancestor" is not a kind of creature. "The kind of creature to be bound must be known and stated." The only way to guarantee an advanced version is to know the name of an advanced version. But likewise, you may just call a standard version, and recieve an advanced one by luck/accident (obviously up to the HD limit of the spell you're casting).

You missed the part where someone pointed out that the dwarven ancestor entry explicitly says you can call advanced versions of the dwarven ancestor with planar ally. And look up Voors while you're at it too. I suggest you read this thread so we don't waste another page repeating what was already said, and I'm probably am not gonna be here for that.


Also, dragon advancement is baseline because it quite clearly explains how a dragon advances: by age. If a dragon is 300 years old, it is X age category, etc etc. A pit fiend on the other hand has no explicit means of advancement. Is it number of souls collected? Is it experience? Is it age? Nobody knows for sure, so it comes down to the DM's decision.

I'm arguing that advanced creatures with LA are all baseline, not pit fiend. Others are but not me. I'm arguing hound archons hd 7-18 are baseline. Whether a creature advances by age or xp should not matter. Why would it? If all advanced dragons are baseline then all advanced creatures with LA should be baseline too.

[redking]

An epic Cosmic Descryer can use his magic to bring forth advanced creatures through his awesome epic abilities. Where do you find your 36HD advanced Pit Fiend for your simulacrum spell? For that matter, why do you believe eschew material components or ignore material components can do this for you? Why not an advanced creature with 10 levels of Ur-Priest + additional HD so your simulacrum can hve 10 levels of Ur-Priest as well. Surely they exist somewhere, which means that you can ignore the materal component and just bring it forth as a simulacrum.

Or, we can put this down to a tortured reading of RAW, going directly against RAI also.

[Crake]

You missed the part where someone pointed out that the dwarven ancestor entry explicitly says you can call advanced versions of the dwarven ancestor with planar ally. And look up Voors while you're at it too. I suggest you read this thread so we don't spend another page debating the same thing all over again.

Firstly, I didn't miss those parts. Secondly, note it says planar ally, not planar binding. If you have a look at planar ally, you actually have no real control over what creature you're going to recieve, you simply make a request, and your deity grants you a creature. So you can request from your deity "I want the strongest dwarven ancestor you can send me" when casting greater planar ally, and you may recieve an 18HD one, you may only recieve a 15HD one if that is the strongest that the deity has in their employ, or your deity may just straight up give you something else. This logic does not extend to planar binding, because you decide the creature to be called, not your deity, and the limits of your decision are a kind of creature, or a specifc named creature. Dwarven ancestor is a kind of creature, Kilgarth The Worldbreaker, an 18HD advanced dwarven ancestor is a specific named creature, but "18HD advanced dwarven ancestor" fits into neither of those categories.

So, to put it shortly, unless you have specifically met and gotten the name of an 18HD dwarven ancestor, there is no guaranteed way to actually call one, it comes down to your DM's choice.


I'm arguing that advanced creatures with LA are all baseline, not pit fiend. Others are but not me. I'm arguing hound archons hd 7-18 are baseline. Whether a creature advances by age or xp should not matter. Why would it? If all advanced dragons are baseline then all advanced creatures with LA should be baseline too.

I'm not sure why LA factors into it at all? LA only comes in for player characters, and player characters don't advance by racial HD, they advanced by character class, and if you're not talking about a PC, then LA is irrelevant, so racial HD advancement in relation to LA are completely disconnected topics.

[magicalmagicman]

Firstly, I didn't miss those parts. Secondly, note it says planar ally, not planar binding. If you have a look at planar ally, you actually have no real control over what creature you're going to recieve, you simply make a request, and your deity grants you a creature. So you can request from your deity "I want the strongest dwarven ancestor you can send me" when casting greater planar ally, and you may recieve an 18HD one, you may only recieve a 15HD one if that is the strongest that the deity has in their employ, or your deity may just straight up give you something else. This logic does not extend to planar binding, because you decide the creature to be called, not your deity, and the limits of your decision are a kind of creature, or a specifc named creature. Dwarven ancestor is a kind of creature, Kilgarth The Worldbreaker, an 18HD advanced dwarven ancestor is a specific named creature, but "18HD advanced dwarven ancestor" fits into neither of those categories.

So, to put it shortly, unless you have specifically met and gotten the name of an 18HD dwarven ancestor, there is no guaranteed way to actually call one, it comes down to your DM's choice.

Whatever dude. I saw how vehemently you argued that using eschew materials to no longer need the material component for simulacrum resulted in the spell failing when there was literally no RAW that supports your position and how gogogome had to pull teeth and write walls of text to show how everything you said was baseless house ruling trying to be passed off as RAW just because you don't like simulacrum and I'm not really interested in putting in the effort like gogogome did.

I also remember how you vehemently argued that disturbing a creature bound in a magic circle is exactly the same as disturbing the magic circle all because you didn't like how planar binding could be used as an assassination tool and gogogome once again had to pull teeth and write walls of text to show you that nothing in the english dictionary or the d&d glossary said anything about that, and then you argued how a straw that isn't touching the circle but just bridging over the circle is also disturbing the circle.

So yeah, if someone's gonna argue with you it's not me. I only stuck around this long just to call Psyren out on his conduct because he's responding to me only. But he's probably gonna ignore everything I said too.

[Crake]

Whatever dude. I saw how vehemently you argued that using eschew materials to no longer need the material component for simulacrum resulted in the spell failing when there was literally no RAW that supports your position

Except there is raw in the scroll of simulacrum which still required a piece of the creature to be duplicated, your side just shot it down "because it's from a module" only to constantly reference mirror mephits, which lo and behold, are also from a module. I also pointed out the brachina needing a gem for trap the soul as precedence for my argument, which is another bit of RAW that supports my position (here's a bonus question, if you DIDN'T need a gem for trap the soul, where would the soul end up, since the soul is trapped inside the gem?). Just because your side chooses to ignore these points, doesn't mean they don't exist.


and how gogogome had to pull teeth and write walls of text to show how everything you said was baseless house ruling trying to be passed off as RAW just because you don't like simulacrum and I'm not really interested in putting in the effort like gogogome did.

Except that was RoboEmperor.


I also remember how you vehemently argued that disturbing a creature bound in a magic circle is exactly the same as disturbing the magic circle all because you didn't like how planar binding could be used as an assassination tool and gogogome once again had to pull teeth and write walls of text to show you that nothing in the english dictionary or the d&d glossary said anything about that, and then you argued how a straw that isn't touching the circle but just bridging over the circle is also disturbing the circle.

That was also RoboEmperor. And another thread. Something something external baggage.


So yeah, if someone's gonna argue with you it's not me. I only stuck around this long just to call Psyren out on his conduct because he's responding to me only. But he's probably gonna ignore everything I said too.

You can choose not to address my points if you wish, but at the same time, I can still address your points when they're faulty. Honestly, if you're getting this worked up about an internet discussion about the rules in a tabletop roleplay game, maybe you should do something else for a while to cool off.

[magicalmagicman]

Except that was RoboEmperor.

Come on man it's just one page back.


What does that have to do with the spell needing a material component as a blue print to know what you are creating? The spell doesn't know what Iron is. It needs the material component to copy. Without Iron DNA how the hell does the spell know how to create Iron?

If you can decide to create iron and supply iron or ignore it, there's no reason why you can't decide to create John and supply a piece of John or ignore it. You have no basis for your claim that simulacrum's material component comes first. Nothing in the spell description references the material component just like how minor creation does not reference the material component. Nowhere does it say for minor creation the decision comes first and for simulacrum the material component comes first. All this is your way of trying to come up with a reason to try to nerf a powerful spell but stopping the same reason from nerfing an average spell.

And an adventure module using a scroll that requires the piece of creature is irrelevant. The question is can you create a simulacrum of a creature without a piece of it? The answer is yes. Mirror Mephit proves it. Whether that simulacrum scroll required an additional material component after creation is completely irrelevant to the fact that a creature accomplished creating simulacra without a piece of the creature. If john can lift a brick while jenny can't, is the brick liftable by a human? The answer is yes because you only need one case to prove that your claim that simulacrum fails without material components is false.

There is no RAW text that says the spell fails without a material component.
Nothing in the simulacrum spell description references the simulacrum material component.
There is no RAW text that says for minor creation the decision comes first yet for simulacrum the material component (which is never referenced) comes first.
There is no RAW text that says you can ignore the material component blue print for minor creation but not for simulacrum.
There are no official examples of creatures failing to cast simulacrum as an SLA without a material component. There is an official example that does the exact opposite.

There is simply nothing, no rule text, no official examples, or even logic, that supports anything that you've said.

Casting the spell and gaining the desired effect without needing that component means you are so good at casting simulacrum you can create simulacra of john without needing a piece of john. How is being so good at casting spells that you don't need a piece of john to create a simulacrum a john result in spell failure?

Why is this interpretation wrong and why is your interpretation right? What piece of rule text says you're right and that I'm wrong? Why can't you be so good at casting simulacrum that you don't need a piece of john to create john? And how come you say minor creation does not need a blueprint material component while simulacrum absolutely does?

There is an official example of a creature successfully casting simulacrum without a piece of the creature. Ravenloft's scroll has nothing to do with this accomplishment.
The RAW does not specify any penalty for using eschew materials to forgo the requirement of that material component.
The spell does not use the material component in anyway. It doesn't say it grows a creature from the nail clipping.
The RAW actually supports forgoing the requirement of the material component. It doesn't say "ignore", it says "you don't need it".

There is simply nothing, no rule text, no official example, or even logic, that supports anything that you've said.

Please give us something official, not something you concocted, that supports your claim, instead of making up stuff like how minor creation decides first and can ignore its material component blueprint while simulacrum must use its material component blueprint first before deciding.

RoboEmperor ragequit pages ago.

[Crake]

Come on man it's just one page back.

The whole thing regarding planar binding and magic circles was not in this thread at all.

Also, that whole post was just a rant against a strawman. He was acting as if I was arguing that the spell couldn't be cast without the material component, which is not my arguing point. The spell can be cast, but doing so would just result in a lump of snow, because you're quite literally duplicating nothing.

[magicalmagicman]

The whole thing regarding planar binding and magic circles was not in this thread at all.

Yeah sorry quoted the wrong thing. RoboEmperor ragequit the thread pages ago cause he reached his "tantrum threshold" and I presume was about to go off all ranty like he usually does.

[Crake]

Yeah sorry quoted the wrong thing. RoboEmperor ragequit the thread pages ago cause he reached his "tantrum threshold" and I presume was about to go off all ranty like he usually does.

Not surprised honestly, his posts were getting quite emotionally charged, probably a good choice in his behalf.

[magicalmagicman]

The whole thing regarding planar binding and magic circles was not in this thread at all.

Also, that whole post was just a rant against a strawman. He was acting as if I was arguing that the spell couldn't be cast without the material component, which is not my arguing point. The spell can be cast, but doing so would just result in a lump of snow, because you're quite literally duplicating nothing.

Yeah, see, even after gogogome pointed out that the ravenloft scroll requiring material component is irrelevant because as long as one official creature creates a simulacrum without a material component, it proves that it is possible to cast simulacrum without material components, and you're still here saying the ravenloft scroll somehow negates mirror mephits accomplishment.

gogogome pointed out the spell text makes 0 references to the material component like every single other spell that has ignorable material components. The creature is not grown from its nail clipping, so why is this material component not ignorable? You said the spell doesn't know what to replicate, but in Major Creation's case you said the spell does know what to replicate without the material component. What kind of hypocrisy is this? Why does major creation know to create iron without a blue print material just because the caster wills it, but in Simulacrum's case the caster can't create the creature just because he wills it?

Let me extend this a bit further. How does shadow conjuration know to summon a shadow creature? Because the caster wills it. How does fabricate know to create knives? Because the caster the wills it. How does shadow evocation know to create a fireball effect? Because the caster wills it. How does summon monster know to summon a dog? Because the caster wills it. How does major creation with eschew materials know to create an adamantine shortsword? Because the caster wills it.

So why does a simulacrum without a material component know to create a hound archon? Because the caster wills it. You need to show that simulacrum is a special exception to all other spells. You haven't done that.

gogogome also pointed out eschew material doesn't ignore components. It says you no longer need it. So if we just use the words it becomes: Someone casting simulacrum to create a duplicate hound archon no longer needs the material component. This is more valid than your interpretation by far. Mainly because it does not conflict with RAW and uses exact words, but also because there are no rules that support your claim in any way. If we have two interpretations, one that doesn't defy RAW, and one that does and also has no rules that support it, which one is right? The one that defies RAW and has no rules supporting it, or one that doesn't and is consistent with every single other spell in the game?

If the spell text listed the piece of creature as a target, or if the spell text uses the material component in any way, you might have a case, but it doesn't. The piece of creature is just as involved in the spell as bat guano is for fireball.

So you see, even after both RoboEmperor and gogogome posted walls of text showing you that your claim that simulacrum wouldn't know what creature it's replicating is a house rule trying to be passed off as RAW, you reject all of them and just call it a strawman. So what chance do I have of convincing you? The answer is 0. So it's pointless to pull teeth and post walls of text when anyone not deadset against something working can clearly see you're wrong.

And ultimately, ultimately, even if you're right, a simple Summon Component destroys every single thing you've tried to accomplish here because that spell actually creates the piece of creature.

edit: Huh, it's not ravenloft but castle greyhawk. gogogome must have mixed it up.

[redking]

Next up: using ignore material components in conjunction with simulacrum to make a simulacrum of a Paragon Creature templated Pit Fiend. Indeed, why stop there?

[Jack_Simth]

Next up: using ignore material components in conjunction with simulacrum to make a simulacrum of a Paragon Creature templated Pit Fiend. Indeed, why stop there?
Indeed: Why? Why make a mere Paragon Pit Fiend when you can make a Paragon Half-Dragon (Silver) Half-Dragon (Gold) Half-Dragon (Copper) Half-Dragon (Brass) Half-Dragon (Bronze) Solar. But why stop there? Why not also toss in the Multi-headed template? Half-Fey? Half-Celestial? Half-Fiend? Phrenic?

"The creature must exist" combined with "Not everything possible within the rules necessarily does" makes a handy limiting factor.

Also, it's just Eschew Materials. Or maybe you work around the XP cost of Wish.

[redking]

Indeed: Why? Why make a mere Paragon Pit Fiend when you can make a Paragon Half-Dragon (Silver) Half-Dragon (Gold) Half-Dragon (Copper) Half-Dragon (Brass) Half-Dragon (Bronze) Solar. But why stop there? Why not also toss in the Multi-headed template? Half-Fey? Half-Celestial? Half-Fiend? Phrenic?

"The creature must exist" combined with "Not everything possible within the rules necessarily does" makes a handy limiting factor.

Also, it's just Eschew Materials. Or maybe you work around the XP cost of Wish.

It appears that I have to think big. OK - all those things, plus all stats must have additional +5 inherent bonuses to all their ability scores. Perhaps finding such a creature you describe above would be difficult, indeed, a scholar of such matters would pay a pretty penny for the truename of such a creature to call, but no matter; we just eschewed it, because a nail clipping of such a creature not being listed as having a gp value (according to Robo there), it must be worthless and under 1gp. Failing that we have ignore material components.

[Psyren]

The game isn't being arbitrary. You're being arbitrary. You're arbitrary for saying creatures who advance with time are baseline and that creatures who advance with XP are not baseline because the rules don't make such a distinction. You're making the distinction, not the game. So you're being arbitrary, not the game.

I still don't see how the concept that "creatures age, but not necessarily advance" is me being arbitrary. You can have an elf commoner that lives for a thousand years without gaining a single HD. And few creatures exemplify this better than fiends, who are both immortal and mass-produced.


We have lots of creatures with LA with class levels. Like Hound Archon hero. So NPCs do gain xp.

You're right, I did forget cohorts. So I'll modify my statement to say: party members gain XP, as an award from the DM.

If you mean just NPCs in the world, they're simply given whatever levels they need for the DM to tell their story.



No offense but I think you know you're wrong and you're just dancing around the issue ignoring everything other people say to refuse to admit your error because you don't like simulacrum. I'm feeling the same frustration with you as I'm guessing others before me also felt.

None taken, because I know no such thing.
But why should my interpretation of the spell frustrate you? I'm not your DM; only their opinion matters in the end. And I'm not ignoring what people say - rather, I quote up until or just a little bit past the premise that I disagree with (for example, your belief that I "know I'm wrong") and then disagree with that premise, which is cleaner than then going on to explicitly refute everything flowing from that premise.


Indeed: Why? Why make a mere Paragon Pit Fiend when you can make a Paragon Half-Dragon (Silver) Half-Dragon (Gold) Half-Dragon (Copper) Half-Dragon (Brass) Half-Dragon (Bronze) Solar. But why stop there? Why not also toss in the Multi-headed template? Half-Fey? Half-Celestial? Half-Fiend? Phrenic?

"The creature must exist" combined with "Not everything possible within the rules necessarily does" makes a handy limiting factor.

Precisely - this is just eminently rational from where I'm sitting.

[RoboEmperor]

Indeed: Why? Why make a mere Paragon Pit Fiend when you can make a Paragon Half-Dragon (Silver) Half-Dragon (Gold) Half-Dragon (Copper) Half-Dragon (Brass) Half-Dragon (Bronze) Solar. But why stop there? Why not also toss in the Multi-headed template? Half-Fey? Half-Celestial? Half-Fiend? Phrenic?

"The creature must exist" combined with "Not everything possible within the rules necessarily does" makes a handy limiting factor.

First, templated creatures and advanced creatures are two entirely different things. Advanced creatures are built into their monster stat block so they exist if the monster exists. Advancement is how physically strong a creature can get. Templates on the other hand, doesn't say anything. There is no guarantee other than the sample creature that templated creatures exist.

Second, I have a problem with people changing the rules because of one spell. If simulacrum didn't exist, would you be arguing this hard that advanced creatures don't exist? It's like watching people say creatures with multiple natural attacks can only make as many attacks per round as they have iterative attacks from BAB regardless of how many natural weapons they have because a spellcaster using polymorph once turned into a hydra and made 12 attacks per round.


Also, it's just Eschew Materials. Or maybe you work around the XP cost of Wish.

I never said it wasn't really, really high-op.

And you guys think advanced creatures are what lets simulacrum break the game? How about a 40hd base creature? Like an Anaxim? or an Infernal? Or Dream Larva? No, advanced creatures are actually the suboptimal choice. Planar Binding dwarfs Simulacrum with advanced creatures by miles because Planar Binding doesn't have an xp or gold cost and you get the same creature.

I don't care whether a particular trick works or not. I care that people are making up random BS and doing everything they can to rule lawyer something plain and obvious while blocking their ears and screaming "LA LA LA" because one spell takes advantage of it.

The problem with simulacrum is ignoring the material component. If the material component is unignorable then the spell is fine which is why I've seen plenty of DMs house rule that way and ban mirror mephits as cohorts or improved familiars.

So go ahead and make up rules that don't exist and label literally half the game as a special exception with the rules you made up because of one potentially game breaking spell that no one is denying is very, very powerful takes advantage of it to be on par with Planar Binding instead of not taking advantage of it and breaking the game with epic creatures. I'm not the only one who sees that all of you are irrational.

[Psyren]

First, templated creatures and advanced creatures are two entirely different things. Advanced creatures are built into their monster stat block so they exist if the monster exists. Advancement is how physically strong a creature can get. Templates on the other hand, doesn't say anything. There is no guarantee other than the sample creature that templated creatures exist.

The Monster Manual treats those as one and the same:

"Each of the monster entries in Chapters 1 through 3 describes a typical creature of its kind. However, there are several methods by which extraordinary or unique monsters can be created using a typical creature as the foundation: by adding character classes, increasing a monster’s Hit Dice, or by adding a template to a monster."

Note in particular the clause "can be created" - they don't actually pre-exist, they must be made by the DM.



Second, I have a problem with people changing the rules because of one spell. If simulacrum didn't exist, would you be arguing this hard that advanced creatures don't exist?

Absolutely, because shapeshifting and conjuring exist also. This is a balance issue for them too.

And nowhere did I say simulacrum shouldn't exist. It just needs limits, like any spell.



And you guys think advanced creatures are what lets simulacrum break the game? How about a 40hd base creature? Like an Anaxim? or an Infernal? Or Dream Larva? No, advanced creatures are actually the suboptimal choice.

"Why are you complaining, this isn't as broken as Epic!" is not really persuasive.



So go ahead and make up rules that don't exist and label literally half the game as a special exception with the rules you made up because of one potentially game breaking spell that no one is denying is very, very powerful takes advantage of it to be on par with Planar Binding instead of not taking advantage of it and breaking the game with epic creatures. I'm not the only one who sees that all of you are irrational.

You've so far found two "special exceptions" to the general advancement rules - Cosmic Descryer and True Dragons. That's hardly "half the game."

[redking]

First, templated creatures and advanced creatures are two entirely different things. Advanced creatures are built into their monster stat block so they exist if the monster exists. Advancement is how physically strong a creature can get. Templates on the other hand, doesn't say anything. There is no guarantee other than the sample creature that templated creatures exist.

The Paragon Creature template exists. Creatures with the Paragon Creature template also exist. If they exist (and there is an example of a non-unique generic Paragon Creature Mind Flayer in the ELH), then you can eschew or ignore the need for a piece of the creature, according do every you have written thus far. Backing away now is abusrd.

[icefractal]

I think there's as much evidence of templated creatures existing as advanced ones. Summon Monster has them right there, no epic PrC required, as do the example creatures for each template.

I think the only argument to be made for "a Pit Fiend with 36 HD always exists, a Paragon Pseudonatural Half-Dragon etc Pit Fiend doesn't" is that the latter sounds far dumber than the former. But if you're in the realm of what makes sense, then you're outside the RAW-only zone already, and at that point it's up to the GM what creatures exist and don't.

That said, if this came up when I was running, I would say that in most cases advanced versions of a creature do exist, more so the more common the creature is. It's not that implausible, it's just not something you can guaranteed rely on.

[redking]

I think there's as much evidence of templated creatures existing as advanced ones. Summon Monster has them right there, no epic PrC required, as do the example creatures for each template.

I think the only argument to be made for "a Pit Fiend with 36 HD always exists, a Paragon Pseudonatural Half-Dragon etc Pit Fiend doesn't" is that the latter sounds far dumber than the former. But if you're in the realm of what makes sense, then you're outside the RAW-only zone already, and at that point it's up to the GM what creatures exist and don't.

At this point the real question is why casters even bother creating simulacrum mooks of real people rather than templated or advanced creatures. Perhaps if they wanted to replace the mayor, and that's it. How about an epic pseudonatural creature troll? Let's have ten of those and storm the enemy castle. Oh wait. The enemy has them too.

[icefractal]

At this point the real question is why casters even bother creating simulacrum mooks of real people rather than templated or advanced creatures. Perhaps if they wanted to replace the mayor, and that's it. How about an epic pseudonatural creature troll? Let's have ten of those and storm the enemy castle. Oh wait. The enemy has them too.See that's why I like the "you have to know a specific one" way of doing it. Why do mages go to great effort growing Eldritch abominations they can't control, that would be as much a danger to themselves as anyone else if ever released? So that they can make obedient Simulacra of them.

[RoboEmperor]

You've so far found two "special exceptions" to the general advancement rules - Cosmic Descryer and True Dragons. That's hardly "half the game."

And Dwarven Ancestors. And Voors. And every single craftable construct whose advancement price is given. And every creature that has an advanced form explicitly listed for it because if a base form and an advanced form exists, why wouldn't every single advanced form in between the two exist? And if all of these advanced creatures exist, why wouldn't the rest of the creatures in its advancement entry also exist?

And here's another example: Juvenile and Mature Nabssu. They don't advance by age. They don't advance by xp. They advance solely by eating humanoids. So now we have a new rule: all advanced creatures who advance by eating humanoids are also included in the baseline.

So then we go back to: where does it say "all advanced creatures whose advancement method is specifically noted is included in the baseline while those who have not are not"? and I go back to screaming for a rule citation.

Just to be absolutely clear my stance is:
1. The advancement entry in the creature is non-optional RAW
2. There are far too many examples of advanced creatures being used in d&d or where d&d just assumes the advanced versions exist
3. The rules don't differentiate between one advanced creature and another
4. So there is no differentiation.
5. Therefore, because a ton of advanced creatures exist and the rules don't differentiate between them depending on how they advance, all advanced creatures exist

If there is no rule forbidding something, then you can only do it if
a. there is a rule explicitly allowing it. Or
b. there is an official example doing it.

Advanced creatures is a solid b.

So if you want me to concede show me a rule that explicitly forbids it or show me a rule that explicitly allows only a select few creatures because I have a ton of official examples. And creatures giving the method for its advancement is NOT a rule that says only creatures who have a given method of advancement can advance because there is a lot of creatures with basic and advanced forms that do not give a method of advancement.


I think there's as much evidence of templated creatures existing as advanced ones. Summon Monster has them right there, no epic PrC required, as do the example creatures for each template.

Very valid point. There are far too many fiendish and celestial creatures in summon monster. But how about a double templated creature? Are there any official double templated creatures (just curious)? Anyways, this is a can of worms I will not be dealing with at this time.

[Doctor Awkward]

SLAs never change regardless of caster level =/= SLAs never change regardless of hit dice. Especially since Simulacrum specifically says it affects the resulting creatures' special abilities. SLAs are a special ability, as are supernatural and extraordinary abilities.

You are splitting hairs and ignoring an obvious implication in the text in order to accuse the spell of being more vague than it actually is.

"Special abilities appropriate to it's new level or HD" is quite clearly referring to class features you would lose if your level were suddenly halved, as well as abilities that creatures that gain additional abilities as they advance through racial hit dice, such as dragons.

Attempting to speculate about the nature of special abilities and rank them based on what is and isn't appropriate for given hit dice is entirely outside the scope of the rules and a completely subjective exercise in futility.

[Psyren]

I go back to screaming for a rule citation.

I've given you several :smallconfused: Here, I'll repeat them:

"Advancement
This entry provides a measure of how tough the creature can get if you decide to increase its Hit Dice."

"ADDING HIT DICE
When you improve a monster by adding Hit Dice, use Table 4–4 to determine the effect on the creature’s CR."

"Each of the monster entries in Chapters 1 through 3 describes a typical creature of its kind. However, there are several methods by which extraordinary or unique monsters can be created using a typical creature as the foundation: by adding character classes, increasing a monster’s Hit Dice, or by adding a template to a monster."
And here's one more for good measure:

"When you add higher ability scores, class levels, more Hit Dice, or a template to a monster, you make it a more challenging opponent for your players."



2. There are far too many examples of advanced creatures being used in d&d or where d&d just assumes the advanced versions exist.

MM itself explains this:

"This book usually describes only the most commonly encountered version of a creature (though some entries for advanced monsters can be found)."

"Some entries" because some of them do exist baseline. Which ones? The ones with entries. Which ones without entries could you encounter in your world? Ask your DM.


You are splitting hairs and ignoring an obvious implication in the text in order to accuse the spell of being more vague than it actually is.

"Special abilities appropriate to it's new level or HD" is quite clearly referring to class features you would lose if your level were suddenly halved, as well as abilities that creatures that gain additional abilities as they advance through racial hit dice, such as dragons.

Attempting to speculate about the nature of special abilities and rank them based on what is and isn't appropriate for given hit dice is entirely outside the scope of the rules and a completely subjective exercise in futility.

It's not that the spell is vague, it's that it requires you to exercise judgement. When planar binding refers to "unreasonable commands" that rule requires subjectivity and judgement from the DM. When dominate person refers to "actions against its nature," that is also a call for DM subjectivity and judgement. Wish's "greater effects" require interpretation too. Simulacrum's "appropriate special abilities" are no different; the most powerful spells often contain clauses like these.

[RoboEmperor]

I've given you several :smallconfused: Here, I'll repeat them:

"Advancement
This entry provides a measure of how tough the creature can get if you decide to increase its Hit Dice."

"ADDING HIT DICE
When you improve a monster by adding Hit Dice, use Table 4–4 to determine the effect on the creature’s CR."

"Each of the monster entries in Chapters 1 through 3 describes a typical creature of its kind. However, there are several methods by which extraordinary or unique monsters can be created using a typical creature as the foundation: by adding character classes, increasing a monster’s Hit Dice, or by adding a template to a monster."
And here's one more for good measure:

"When you add higher ability scores, class levels, more Hit Dice, or a template to a monster, you make it a more challenging opponent for your players."

And I will repeat what magicalmagicman and gogogome said.


Oh and one more thing. I believe it is the DM that advances Dwarven Ancestors, but the player can still call Dwarven Ancestors of any hd he wants so all the advanced versions of Dwarven Ancestors are baseline regardless of whether DMs invokes the advancement rules or not. So I agree with gogogome there too that whether advancement rules being exclusive to DMs or not does not matter.
I showed in post 128 that the basis of your argument, that advanced creatures aren't baseline because only the DM invokes the advancement rules, is wrong because even if you're right, if a player wants to call an advanced dwarven ancestor, he can because the rules say they can. You ignored this post. You did not respond to it when it destroys the entire foundation of your position. And we can't have a discussion about it because you don't respond to anything that proves you wrong. Whether or not only the DM can make use of advancement rules is not related in anyway to whether advanced creatures are baseline because players can just ask for an advanced creature and get one even if he doesn't advance it himself.
We are debating whether all advanced creatures exist or not. Invoking advancement rules have absolutely nothing to do with this fact. So why do you keep repeating it?

Players can call advanced even if they don't advance the creatures themselves so whether or not the DM gets to advance the creature is irrelevant.

Example1: GATE
If I call a 42hd Pyroclastic Dragon (it's extraplanar so I can), does the player choose its feats, or does the DM? The answer is DM. The DM gets to determine the Pyroclastic Dragon's stats. But does this mean that the player can't call an advanced dragon? No. So whether or not the DM gets to advance the creature is irrelevant.

Example2: Dwarven Ancestor
The MM entry directly says players can call advanced versions with Planar Ally. Does the player advance the Dwarven Ancestor or does the DM? The answer is DM. The DM gets to determine the advanced Dwarven Ancestor stats. But does this mean the player can't call an advanced Dwarven Ancestor? No. If the DM denies the player advanced Dwarven Ancestors, then he is betraying the RAW and therefore the baseline. Dwarven Ancestors do not have an advanced entry. In any case, whether or not the DM gets to advance the creature is irrelevant.


MM itself explains this:

"This book usually describes only the most commonly encountered version of a creature (though some entries for advanced monsters can be found)."

"Some entries" because some of them do exist baseline. Which ones? The ones with entries. Which ones without entries could you encounter in your world? Ask your DM.
That quote isn't saying what you think it's saying. In fact it helps me not you.
1. It's saying that most of the time the MM stat block gives the stats of the most commonly encountered variety but sometimes will also give you stats of the uncommonly encountered variety. This quote is saying advanced creature = uncommon.
2. Commonly cannot exist without uncommonly also existing. So that quote proves all the advanced versions of the creature exists.
Uncommonly does not mean "doesn't exist unless explicitly said so"
Commonly does not mean exclusive.
3. Dwarven Ancestor and creatures summoned by Cosmic Descryer are clear examples of advanced versions existing without an advanced monster entry.

Am I being unreasonable when I say that the base creature refers to the most commonly encountered variety and the advanced creatures are the uncommonly encountered but definitely exists variety?

[redking]

1. it says most commonly encountered. Which means uncommonly encountered also exists. Which ones are uncommonly encountered? The advanced versions.

Excuse you? I gave an example of where you might call a succubus and instead of that succubus having the dodge feat, it has point blank shot feat. Which you said was impossible lol.

[Crake]

Example1: GATE
If I call a 42hd Pyroclastic Dragon (it's extraplanar so I can), does the player choose its feats, or does the DM? The answer is DM. The DM gets to determine the Pyroclastic Dragon's stats. But does this mean that the player can't call an advanced dragon? No. So whether or not the DM gets to advance the creature is irrelevant.

Both gate and planar binding use the same language "By naming a particular being or kind of being as you cast the spell". "42HD pyroclastic dragon" is not a "kind" of being. "Pyroclastic dragon" is. So you cannot choose to call a 42HD one, unless you're already aware of the existence of one that you've met before, or read about in some book, and know his/her name so you can call that one specifically.


Example2: Dwarven Ancestor
The MM entry directly says players can call advanced versions with Planar Ally. Does the player advance the Dwarven Ancestor or does the DM? The answer is DM. The DM gets to determine the advanced Dwarven Ancestor stats. But does this mean the player can't call an advanced Dwarven Ancestor? No. If the DM denies the player advanced Dwarven Ancestors, then he is betraying the RAW and therefore the baseline. Dwarven Ancestors do not have an advanced entry. In any case, whether or not the DM gets to advance the creature is irrelevant.

Incorrect-o my friend-o. I have already addressed this point I think on the last page, but I'll paste it again now for simplicity.


Note it says planar ally, not planar binding. If you have a look at planar ally, you actually have no real control over what creature you're going to recieve, you simply make a request, and your deity grants you a creature. So you can request from your deity "I want the strongest dwarven ancestor you can send me" when casting greater planar ally, and you may recieve an 18HD one, you may only recieve a 15HD one if that is the strongest that the deity has in their employ, or your deity may just straight up give you something else. This logic does not extend to planar binding, because you decide the creature to be called, not your deity, and the limits of your decision are a kind of creature, or a specifc named creature. Dwarven ancestor is a kind of creature, Kilgarth The Worldbreaker, an 18HD advanced dwarven ancestor is a specific named creature, but "18HD advanced dwarven ancestor" fits into neither of those categories.

So, to put it shortly, unless you have specifically met and gotten the name of an 18HD dwarven ancestor, there is no guaranteed way to actually call one, it comes down to your DM's choice.

When it comes down to it, whether or not advanced creatures "are baseline", whatever that means, it's irrelevant to any of the spells noted so far. Planar ally gives the player literally no control over what's summoned, planar binding and gate both specify a named individual or a kind of creature, which means you could actually randomly get an advanced version (within the HD limits of the spell you're casting), or even one with non-baseline stats/feats, even when you didn't mean to, and as I said a page or so ago, this logic actually extends to summoning creatures as well, but most DMs don't want to customize each and every summon, so for expediency they just default to the standard. And, of course, simulacrum's limiting factor is needing the piece of the creature to be duplicated, you need to have physical proof that such a creature actually exists, you can't just enter into the realm what-ifs with your DM, and say "Well, this COULD exist, thus you have to give it to me".

Personally, the scroll in expedition to ruins of castle greyhawk, which is just about as 1st party as you can get for a module (and on equal footing with expedition to the demonweb pits with the mirror mephit, which I would still argue needs a piece of the creature to be duplicated), and the brachina needing a gem to use it's trap the soul SLA is about as much precedence as I need to convince me quite strongly that I'm right, that some spells are so reliant on their components that they simply cannot function without them, but I'll happily continue discussing, maybe someone will convince me otherwise.

[RoboEmperor]

Both gate and planar binding use the same language "By naming a particular being or kind of being as you cast the spell". "42HD pyroclastic dragon" is not a "kind" of being. "Pyroclastic dragon" is. So you cannot choose to call a 42HD one, unless you're already aware of the existence of one that you've met before, or read about in some book, and know his/her name so you can call that one specifically.

Great Wyrm isn't a kind of dragon? Because that's what a 42hd Pyroclastic dragon is, a Great Wyrm. Are you saying I can't call a Great Wyrm?


Incorrect-o my friend-o. I have already addressed this point I think on the last page, but I'll paste it again now for simplicity.


When it comes down to it, whether or not advanced creatures "are baseline", whatever that means, it's irrelevant to any of the spells noted so far. Planar ally gives the player literally no control over what's summoned, planar binding and gate both specify a named individual or a kind of creature, which means you could actually randomly get an advanced version (within the HD limits of the spell you're casting), or even one with non-baseline stats/feats, even when you didn't mean to, and as I said a page or so ago, this logic actually extends to summoning creatures as well, but most DMs don't want to customize each and every summon, so for expediency they just default to the standard.


And, of course, simulacrum's limiting factor is needing the piece of the creature to be duplicated, you need to have physical proof that such a creature actually exists, you can't just enter into the realm what-ifs with your DM, and say "Well, this COULD exist, thus you have to give it to me".

One thing at a time. Right now I'm focusing on proving that Advanced Creatures (aka uncommonly encountered creatures) exist unless house ruled that they don't.

If this is proven then advanced creatures physically exist and they are non-unique (just like greater stone golems are nonunique, or great wyrms are nonunique, or Dreadful Lasher (voor) is nonunique) which will prove that these creatures physically exist or have existed therefore I can make simulacra of them unless house ruled otherwise.

If Great Wyrm Dragon is a "kind" of creature, no reason all other advanced versions aren't also "kind" of creature.
Check out Voor from MMIV. It has an advanced version: Dreadful Lasher. The Dreadful Lasher is simply an advanced Voor, nothing more. So if this advanced Voor is a "kind" of creature, why isn't the other unstatted unnamed advanced versions of Voors also "kinds" of creatures?


Personally, the scroll in expedition to ruins of castle greyhawk, which is just about as 1st party as you can get for a module (and on equal footing with expedition to the demonweb pits with the mirror mephit, which I would still argue needs a piece of the creature to be duplicated), and the brachina needing a gem to use it's trap the soul SLA is about as much precedence as I need to convince me quite strongly that I'm right, that some spells are so reliant on their components that they simply cannot function without them, but I'll happily continue discussing, maybe someone will convince me otherwise.

I think magicalmagicman discussed all the possible points there are. If you want to contest his points I'd be happy to discuss them. His points were
1. Mirror Mephit didn't need a piece of creature to create a simulacrum of the PC to make trouble in his name. He created the Simulacrum while residing in the plane of mirrors, an entire plane of existence away from the PC. There was no way the mirror mephit could've gotten a piece of the PC. And there is no snow in the Plane of Mirrors. And if anything I believe the snow is the more essential material component because the spell actually references the snow as the body of the simulacrum. So if that's ignorable then so is the piece of creature.
2. Exact wording of Eschew Materials is "without needing the component". So if you have Eschew Materials, you can create any spell effect without needing its material component. So you can create Simulacra of a creature without needing a piece of it.
3. You're being "arbitrary and unfair" when you say every single spell other than simulacrum has its effect determined by the caster, but not simulacrum, who has to have its effect determined by its material component when the piece of creature is as involved in the spell as bat guano is for fireball. If you are right about Trap the Soul, you are still wrong that it applies here because the spell does not reference the material component even once.

[Doctor Awkward]

It's not that the spell is vague, it's that it requires you to exercise judgement. When planar binding refers to "unreasonable commands" that rule requires subjectivity and judgement from the DM. When dominate person refers to "actions against its nature," that is also a call for DM subjectivity and judgement. Wish's "greater effects" require interpretation too. Simulacrum's "appropriate special abilities" are no different; the most powerful spells often contain clauses like these.

"Unreasonable commands" is subjective only to what the specific creature being commanded would find unreasonable. There are no judgement calls there at all from the standpoint of the rules as written, just with regards to whatever personality the DM assigned to his creature. Same thing for Dominate. There are no rules for that because it's entirely a story decision.

Wishes effects are so specifically spelled out that there is essentially nothing you can wish for that isn't either a greater or lesser version of something on the list. Consider how many real-life wishes a person might want that can be boiled down to duplicating a spell that has the same or similar effect. In all cases such "greater effects" are a very common sense ruling, and often irrelevant since it's an open invitation to pervert the intention into whatever result you find most amusing.

Simulacrum is the same. "appropriate special abilities" are anything that would definitively change with less class levels or hit dice than the target creature currently possesses. Such things are the blatantly obvious (class features) or things that are clearly spelled out in the monster's entry. There is no comparison here between planar binding and dominate. A monster's statistics are not reflected by his personality and backstory. They are reflected in its entry in the Monster Manual.

[Crake]

Great Wyrm isn't a kind of dragon? Because that's what a 42hd Pyroclastic dragon is, a Great Wyrm. Are you saying I can't call a Great Wyrm?

I would argue no, a great wyrm pyroclastic dragon isn't a kind of creature. Pyroclastic dragon is. That would be like saying "I want a 600 year old succubus".

[RoboEmperor]

I would argue no, a great wyrm pyroclastic dragon isn't a kind of creature. Pyroclastic dragon is. That would be like saying "I want a 600 year old succubus".

How about a "Pyroclastic Great Wyrm"? That sounds like a kind of creature. If no then this is where we agree to disagree. Great Wyrms have their own stat block so I disagree.

How about my Dreadful Lasher example? A Voor advanced to 15hd is its own "kind" of creature. So why wouldn't a Voor advanced to 14hd or 16hd also be a "kind" of creature? Because WotC didn't create a statblock for it and didn't give it a unique name? That's a dumb reason and I won't accept it.

[Psyren]

Am I being unreasonable when I say that the base creature refers to the most commonly encountered variety and the advanced creatures are the uncommonly encountered but definitely exists variety?

If you are dictating to a DM which variant/improved versions of monsters "definitely exist" in their setting because of an epic PrC and a handful of exceptions, then yes, I do think that is unreasonable. The DM owns the advancement rules by default, as the rules I've quoted show.



Simulacrum is the same. "appropriate special abilities" are anything that would definitively change with less class levels or hit dice than the target creature currently possesses. Such things are the blatantly obvious (class features) or things that are clearly spelled out in the monster's entry. There is no comparison here between planar binding and dominate. A monster's statistics are not reflected by his personality and backstory. They are reflected in its entry in the Monster Manual.

So you'd rule that a 9HD pit fiend has all its SLAs, including the ability to grant wishes - is that right?

[RoboEmperor]

If you are dictating to a DM which variant/improved versions of monsters "definitely exist" in their setting because of an epic PrC and a handful of exceptions, then yes, I do think that is unreasonable. The DM owns the advancement rules by default, as the rules I've quoted show.

A person shoving rules in the DMs face to get his munchkin shtick is unreasonable. If the DM says his setting is not standard d&d then it's not default or baseline and we're not talking about d&d anymore. We're talking about a homebrew setting.

The DM owning the advancement rules by default is irrelevant as I've shown. If I want to call an advanced creature, the DM has to give it to me unless he decides to deviate from the default and house rule that such creatures don't exist.

Default:Exists. Why is it so hard for you to admit this? In an official setting with no DM modifications, advanced creatures exist by default.

[Psyren]

The DM owning the advancement rules by default is irrelevant as I've shown. If I want to call an advanced creature, the DM has to give it to me unless he decides to deviate from the default and house rule that such creatures don't exist.

It's not irrelevant at all. Even for your prime example, the Advanced Dwarven Ancestor, this isn't necessarily true. The exact text saying: "Advanced Ancestors require higher-level versions of the spell." Nothing says you have to get one, only that if you want a chance at one, you need the higher level versions of the spell. Indeed, Planar Ally itself does not guarantee anything about any creature you reach out for.

So at this point, probably best that we agree to disagree, not play at each others' tables etc.

[RoboEmperor]

It's not irrelevant at all. Even for your prime example, the Advanced Dwarven Ancestor, this isn't necessarily true. The exact text saying: "Advanced Ancestors require higher-level versions of the spell." Nothing says you have to get one, only that if you want a chance at one, you need the higher level versions of the spell. Indeed, Planar Ally itself does not guarantee anything about any creature you reach out for.

So at this point, probably best that we agree to disagree, not play at each others' tables etc.

How about my Pyroclastic Great Wyrm example?

[sorcererlover]

If you are dictating to a DM which variant/improved versions of monsters "definitely exist" in their setting because of an epic PrC and a handful of exceptions, then yes, I do think that is unreasonable. The DM owns the advancement rules by default, as the rules I've quoted show.


So at this point, probably best that we agree to disagree, not play at each others' tables etc.

Someone's getting desperate. There's now an official quote that says advanced creatures are uncommon but definitely exists and he ignores it all. Again. And calls a mountain of exceptions a "handful", and I'd like to ask you, exception to what?

Look, this guy will die before he admits he's wrong so just drop it. Don't agree to disagree though. There's nothing to disagree. You got him dead to rights.

[Psyren]

There's now an official quote that says advanced creatures are uncommon but definitely exists

"If you decide to increase its Hit Dice" = "definitely exists". Uh-huh.

[sorcererlover]

"If you decide to increase its Hit Dice" = "definitely exists". Uh-huh.

You = player or DM. That section is not exclusive to DM. I can create a homunculus and choose to increase its hit dice as a player.

Does the DM get to choose to increase its hit dice when the player gates in a Pyroclastic Great Wyrm? Does the DM get to choose to increase its hit dice when the player summons a creature with advanced hit dice?

He does if he house rules.

Jesus Christ.

[gogogome]

You got him dead to rights.

Pretty much. I've been saying for pages now that advancement entry of the stat block is not a variant rule. It is the game telling you that uncommon creatures of these hit dice exist. And that quote Psyren gave proves it.


"If you decide to increase its Hit Dice" = "definitely exists". Uh-huh.

This is not saying whether you get to decide if these creatures exist or not. This is saying if you want to use the uncommon variants or not. We've firmly established that all advanced creatures exist.

The MM and DMG assumes the reader is the DM. That doesn't mean the Player can't use the rules. All magic items are in the DMG. Does that mean players cannot use item creation feats to craft them? And the item creation rules are also in the DMG.

The foundation of your position is perhaps the most irrational reasoning I've ever experienced on these forums. Your entire position is that one sentence where it says the DM or player can increase a monster's hit dice and we've repeatedly shown you that even if you are correct it is irrelevant.


The opinion of a person who ignores multiple posters' endlessly repeating posts, keeps repeating that a rule used by both players and DMs alike is exclusive to DMs, and endlessly ignores all RAW with the reason: a no-name DM controls everything in a homebrewed setting, shouldn't really matter I guess. Oh and he labels a mountain of evidence as "special cases" and ignores all of them.

I'm gonna learn from this experience and not respond to anyone who talks about a DM's god status in a homebrewed setting in a RAW official d&d discussion.

He has shown a good deal of bias in this thread that he does not like simulacra of advanced creatures and it's pretty much a law of nature that people who are biased can never be persuaded otherwise especially by an internet discussion.

I doubt Crake here has changed his mind about Simulacra and gate as well.

[sorcererlover]

It's not irrelevant at all. Even for your prime example, the Advanced Dwarven Ancestor, this isn't necessarily true. The exact text saying: "Advanced Ancestors require higher-level versions of the spell." Nothing says you have to get one, only that if you want a chance at one, you need the higher level versions of the spell. Indeed, Planar Ally itself does not guarantee anything about any creature you reach out for.

So at this point, probably best that we agree to disagree, not play at each others' tables etc.

Look at that. He ignored this for a really, really long time and then just repeats what Crake said without saying anything about planar binding. And now he's ignoring the dragon example because he doesn't know how to refute it.

[Kaleph]

Here you are. What I simply recalculated is marked in blue. Some changes to special abilities are marked red instead - it means I had to use some DM judgement to make a decision. Spell-like abilities are removed or tuned down based on the new caster level. Other abilities are tuned down in order to fit lower CR devils.

PIT FIEND
Large Outsider (Baatezu, Evil, Extraplanar, Lawful)
Hit Dice: 9d8+72 (112 hp)
Initiative: +12
Speed: 40 ft. (8 squares), fly 60 ft. (average)
AC: 40 (–1 size, +8 Dex, +23 natural) touch 17, flat-footed 32
Base Attack/Grapple: +9/+26
Attack: Claw +21 melee (2d8+13)
Full Attack: 2 claws +21 melee (2d8+13) and 2 wings +19 melee (2d6+6) and bite +19 melee (4d6+6 plus poison plus disease) and tail slap +19 melee (2d8+6)
Space/Reach: 10 ft./10 ft.
Special Attacks: Constrict 2d8+26, fear aura, improved grab, spell-like abilities, summon baatezu
Special Qualities: Damage reduction 10/good or silver, darkvision 60 ft., immunity to fire and poison, resistance to acid 10 and cold 10, regeneration 5, see in darkness, spell resistance 23, telepathy 100 ft.
Saves: Fort +14, Ref +14, Will +14
Abilities: Str 37, Dex 27, Con 27, Int 26, Wis 26, Cha 26
Skills: Balance +10, Bluff +20, Climb +25, Concentration +20, Diplomacy +10, Disguise +20 (+22 acting), Hide +16, Intimidate +22, Jump +31, Knowledge (arcana) +20, Knowledge (nature) +10, Knowledge (the planes) +20, Knowledge (religion) +20, Listen +20, Move silently +20, Search +20, Spellcraft +22, Spot +20, Survival +8 (+10 on other planes, +10 when tracking), Tumble +22.
Feats: Cleave, Great Cleave, Improved Initiative, Iron Will, Multiattack, Power Attack, Quicken Spell-Like Ability (fireball)
Alignment: Always lawful evil

Constrict (Ex): A pit fiend deals 2d8+26 points of damage with a successful grapple check.
Disease (Su): A creature struck by a pit fiend’s bite attack must succeed on a DC 22 Fortitude save or be infected with a vile disease known as devil chills (incubation period 1d4 days, damage 1d4 Str). The save DC is Constitution-based.
Fear Aura (Su): A pit fiend can radiate a 20-foot-radius fear aura as a free action. A creature in the area must succeed on a DC 22 Will save or be affected as though by a fear spell (caster level 18th). A creature that successfully saves cannot be affected again by the same pit fiend’s aura for 24 hours. Other baatezu are immune to the aura. The save DC is Charisma-based.
Improved Grab (Ex): To use this ability, a pit fiend must hit with its tail slap attack. It can then attempt to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity. If it wins the grapple check, it establishes a hold and can constrict.
Poison (Ex): Injury, Fortitude DC 22, initial damage 1d6 Con, secondary damage death. The save DC is Constitution-based.
Spell-Like Abilities: At will—blasphemy (DC 25), create undead, fireball (DC 21), greater dispel magic, greater teleport (self plus 50 pounds of objects only), invisibility, magic circle against good, mass hold monster (DC 23), persistent image (DC 23), power word stun, unholy aura (DC 26); 1/day—meteor swarm (DC 27). Caster level 9th. The save DCs are Charisma-based.
Once per year a pit fiend can use limited wish as the spell (caster level 13th).
Summon Baatezu (Sp): Twice per day a pit fiend can automatically summon 2 lemures, bone devils, or bearded devils, or 1 erinyes, horned devil, or ice devil. This ability is the equivalent of an 8th-level spell.
Regeneration (Ex): A pit fiend takes normal damage from good-aligned weapons, silvered weapons, and from spells or effects with the good descriptor.

[Pippin]

I have a feeling that some people play at the same table with poorly justified TO going on, and whenever one of them fails to make a point on GitP, the rest of the team just gangs up and supports whatever nonsense needs help.

That would explain why the same people have been involved in every unpleasant debate that has popped up over the last few weeks. Anyone else have a possible explanation?

[Kaleph]

I have a feeling that some people play at the same table with poorly justified TO going on, and whenever one of them fails to make a point on GitP, the rest of the team just gangs up and supports whatever nonsense needs help.

That would explain why the same people have been involved in every unpleasant debate that has popped up over the last few weeks. Anyone else have a possible explanation?

I have the feeling that some people involved do not play at all; they possibly wish to play with that level of poorly justified TO, which brings me to think that they have no real interest in the game as it's designed to be played.

Also, when they reply to a player's request for help, they have no interest in actually helping at all. And when the OP kindly asks if they can stop derailing his thread, they ignore him on purpose, since it's probably more important for them to go on trying to make their point.

[gogogome]

I have a feeling that some people play at the same table with poorly justified TO going on, and whenever one of them fails to make a point on GitP, the rest of the team just gangs up and supports whatever nonsense needs help.

That would explain why the same people have been involved in every unpleasant debate that has popped up over the last few weeks. Anyone else have a possible explanation?

That's an interesting position coming from someone who believes residual metamagic applies to every spell cast in the following round. Most would call that poorly justified TO. Do you find me unpleasant because I don't agree with your views?

I don't support anyone I don't agree with. I'm sure you can recollect how I made Robo concede in the thread with Azure Talent and Psycarnum Infusion with an faq entry. You commented yourself that the FAQ should not be used to prove or disprove anything.

To answer your accusation I have a player who frequents this forum and follows one of RoboEmperor's build. It's called the Sorcerer Master of Animated Objects and he uses simulacrum in that build so I am interested in all topics regarding simulacrum and planar binding which happens to be the topics RoboEmperor engages.

I did get worked up in this thread. I am ashamed of that. But I was getting frustrated that people were being irrational. RAW is broken, this is fact, so just accept that the rules are broken instead of doing all of these mental gymnastics to try and fix the broken rules with alternate interpretations that don't really fit.


I have the feeling that some people involved do not play at all; they possibly wish to play with that level of poorly justified TO, which brings me to think that they have no real interest in the game as it's designed to be played.

Creating Simulacra of advanced creatures hardly enters the level of TO. Ignoring the material component might be but from my experience a player can just Gate in an advanced creature for a hair and the resulting creature is no more powerful than your other minionmancy options such as a Craft Construct, Necromancy, or Planar Binding so I let it fly. A rule I do have is that each player can only have one combat minion at any time and its CR must be equal or lower to the party's average ECL.


Also, when they reply to a player's request for help, they have no interest in actually helping at all. And when the OP kindly asks if they can stop derailing his thread, they ignore him on purpose, since it's probably more important for them to go on trying to make their point.

The OP said the issue was over and that he received a 9hd pit fiend. I don't see how you can derail a thread that already ended.

[Pippin]

I don't see how you can derail a thread that already ended.
Luckily the answer to this question lies in your own post.

That's an interesting position coming from someone who believes residual metamagic applies to every spell cast in the following round. Most would call that poorly justified TO.

[Kaleph]

The OP said the issue was over and that he received a 9hd pit fiend. I don't see how you can derail a thread that already ended.

No, the OP said that he was not asking how many HD the simulacrum should have, since in-game he already duplicated a 9HD pit fiend. He said that any discussion regarding 18HD simulacra was useless, since it wouldn't help him. He also clearly stated that he was still waiting for stats for his 9HD pit fiend. And he waited for more than 100 Posts.

EDIT


Creating Simulacra of advanced creatures hardly enters the level of TO. Ignoring the material component might be but from my experience a player can just Gate in an advanced creature for a hair and the resulting creature is no more powerful than your other minionmancy options such as a Craft Construct, Necromancy, or Planar Binding so I let it fly. A rule I do have is that each player can only have one combat minion at any time and its CR must be equal or lower to the party's average ECL.

That's reasonable. We don't know if this would allow theoretically speaking an 18HD at the OP's table (has he gate? Are they 18 ECL?), but in any case that's not what the OP was asking. And your tone/topic/argumentation in your sentence are much more reasonable than most of the posts in this thread, anyhow. That's not this kind of answers that disappoints me.

[gogogome]

Luckily the answer to this question lies in your own post.

You are correct. You have derailed this thread by throwing a baseless accusation my way.


No, the OP said that he was not asking how many HD the simulacrum should have, since in-game he already duplicated a 9HD pit fiend. He said that any discussion regarding 18HD simulacra was useless, since it wouldn't help him. He also clearly stated that he was still waiting for stats for his 9HD pit fiend. And he waited for more than 100 Posts.

On second reading of that post it seems you are correct. I suppose I should apologize to the OP for contributing to the derailment.

[Kaleph]

On second reading of that post it seems you are correct. I suppose I should apologize to the OP for contributing to the derailment.

I have to apologize, then, for being rude. I'm not the OP or a Mod, after all, so my rant was slightly out of place. No fingerpointing towards a specific commenter was meant, though.

Still I'm happy that it's solved. I guess we are both fatigued for the rest of the encounter, now :D

[Crake]

I doubt Crake here has changed his mind about Simulacra and gate as well.

I mean, to be fair, I have no problem with creating simulacra or gating in advanced creatures if you have a piece of them/can call them by name, but you don't just get to whip them up out of thin air.

At best, even in a hypothetical world in which I agreed that simulacrum could be used without a material component, you still need an original to be duplicating. You can't just say "I wanna duplicate an advanced pit fiend", you have to specify "I want to duplicate Kralazyxth the fifteenth duke of the 3rd layer of hell" and in this case, Kralazyxth just happens to be an advanced pit fiend.

Anything you have yet to encounter in some form, whether it be reading it in a book, hearing it from an NPC, or meeting it in person, if you haven't actually encountered it in some way, then you as a player have no right to demand it's existence in a game. A DM doesn't even need to include the existence of every monster in every monster manual ever either. For example, I have no gith or slaad in my setting, because I don't have limbo or an astral plane.

[Mrark]

Here you are. What I simply recalculated is marked in blue. Some changes to special abilities are marked red instead - it means I had to use some DM judgement to make a decision. Spell-like abilities are removed or tuned down based on the new caster level. Other abilities are tuned down in order to fit lower CR devils.

PIT FIEND
Large Outsider (Baatezu, Evil, Extraplanar, Lawful)
Hit Dice: 9d8+72 (112 hp)
Initiative: +12
Speed: 40 ft. (8 squares), fly 60 ft. (average)
AC: 40 (–1 size, +8 Dex, +23 natural) touch 17, flat-footed 32
Base Attack/Grapple: +9/+26
Attack: Claw +21 melee (2d8+13)
Full Attack: 2 claws +21 melee (2d8+13) and 2 wings +19 melee (2d6+6) and bite +19 melee (4d6+6 plus poison plus disease) and tail slap +19 melee (2d8+6)
Space/Reach: 10 ft./10 ft.
Special Attacks: Constrict 2d8+26, fear aura, improved grab, spell-like abilities, summon baatezu
Special Qualities: Damage reduction 10/good or silver, darkvision 60 ft., immunity to fire and poison, resistance to acid 10 and cold 10, regeneration 5, see in darkness, spell resistance 23, telepathy 100 ft.
Saves: Fort +14, Ref +14, Will +14
Abilities: Str 37, Dex 27, Con 27, Int 26, Wis 26, Cha 26
Skills: Balance +10, Bluff +20, Climb +25, Concentration +20, Diplomacy +10, Disguise +20 (+22 acting), Hide +16, Intimidate +22, Jump +31, Knowledge (arcana) +20, Knowledge (nature) +10, Knowledge (the planes) +20, Knowledge (religion) +20, Listen +20, Move silently +20, Search +20, Spellcraft +22, Spot +20, Survival +8 (+10 on other planes, +10 when tracking), Tumble +22.
Feats: Cleave, Great Cleave, Improved Initiative, Iron Will, Multiattack, Power Attack, Quicken Spell-Like Ability (fireball)
Alignment: Always lawful evil

Constrict (Ex): A pit fiend deals 2d8+26 points of damage with a successful grapple check.
Disease (Su): A creature struck by a pit fiend’s bite attack must succeed on a DC 22 Fortitude save or be infected with a vile disease known as devil chills (incubation period 1d4 days, damage 1d4 Str). The save DC is Constitution-based.
Fear Aura (Su): A pit fiend can radiate a 20-foot-radius fear aura as a free action. A creature in the area must succeed on a DC 22 Will save or be affected as though by a fear spell (caster level 18th). A creature that successfully saves cannot be affected again by the same pit fiend’s aura for 24 hours. Other baatezu are immune to the aura. The save DC is Charisma-based.
Improved Grab (Ex): To use this ability, a pit fiend must hit with its tail slap attack. It can then attempt to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity. If it wins the grapple check, it establishes a hold and can constrict.
Poison (Ex): Injury, Fortitude DC 22, initial damage 1d6 Con, secondary damage death. The save DC is Constitution-based.
Spell-Like Abilities: At will—blasphemy (DC 25), create undead, fireball (DC 21), greater dispel magic, greater teleport (self plus 50 pounds of objects only), invisibility, magic circle against good, mass hold monster (DC 23), persistent image (DC 23), power word stun, unholy aura (DC 26); 1/day—meteor swarm (DC 27). Caster level 9th. The save DCs are Charisma-based.
Once per year a pit fiend can use limited wish as the spell (caster level 13th).
Summon Baatezu (Sp): Twice per day a pit fiend can automatically summon 2 lemures, bone devils, or bearded devils, or 1 erinyes, horned devil, or ice devil. This ability is the equivalent of an 8th-level spell.
Regeneration (Ex): A pit fiend takes normal damage from good-aligned weapons, silvered weapons, and from spells or effects with the good descriptor.

Thanks!!!!

[redking]

I mean, to be fair, I have no problem with creating simulacra or gating in advanced creatures if you have a piece of them/can call them by name, but you don't just get to whip them up out of thin air.

I have no problem with it either. I expect there will be quite a trade in arcane circles for bits of advanced creatures, and the cost won't be under 1gp. And a Cosmic Descryer can call a 36 HD Pit Fiend by RAW and RAI - but then the character doing it would have to be well over 30th level.

If you can eschew or ignore material components to cast simulacrum without the bit of the creature, then a 36 HD Paragon Creature Solar is on the table. Even Robo seemed to back down from that, which is an indication that he realizes how absurd his postion is.

[Psyren]

You = player or DM. That section is not exclusive to DM. I can create a homunculus and choose to increase its hit dice as a player.

"for your players."

Players have players? News to me.



Jesus Christ.

Amen!


I mean, to be fair, I have no problem with creating simulacra or gating in advanced creatures if you have a piece of them/can call them by name, but you don't just get to whip them up out of thin air.

At best, even in a hypothetical world in which I agreed that simulacrum could be used without a material component, you still need an original to be duplicating. You can't just say "I wanna duplicate an advanced pit fiend", you have to specify "I want to duplicate Kralazyxth the fifteenth duke of the 3rd layer of hell" and in this case, Kralazyxth just happens to be an advanced pit fiend.

I'm totally fine with this too, for the record.

[sorcererlover]

"for your players."

Players have players? News to me.


Pretty much. I've been saying for pages now that advancement entry of the stat block is not a variant rule. It is the game telling you that uncommon creatures of these hit dice exist. And that quote Psyren gave proves it.



This is not saying whether you get to decide if these creatures exist or not. This is saying if you want to use the uncommon variants or not. We've firmly established that all advanced creatures exist.

The MM and DMG assumes the reader is the DM. That doesn't mean the Player can't use the rules. All magic items are in the DMG. Does that mean players cannot use item creation feats to craft them? And the item creation rules are also in the DMG.

The foundation of your position is perhaps the most irrational reasoning I've ever experienced on these forums. Your entire position is that one sentence where it says the DM or player can increase a monster's hit dice and we've repeatedly shown you that even if you are correct it is irrelevant.

Ten characters

[gogogome]

I mean, to be fair, I have no problem with creating simulacra or gating in advanced creatures if you have a piece of them/can call them by name, but you don't just get to whip them up out of thin air.

At best, even in a hypothetical world in which I agreed that simulacrum could be used without a material component, you still need an original to be duplicating. You can't just say "I wanna duplicate an advanced pit fiend", you have to specify "I want to duplicate Kralazyxth the fifteenth duke of the 3rd layer of hell" and in this case, Kralazyxth just happens to be an advanced pit fiend.

Anything you have yet to encounter in some form, whether it be reading it in a book, hearing it from an NPC, or meeting it in person, if you haven't actually encountered it in some way, then you as a player have no right to demand it's existence in a game. A DM doesn't even need to include the existence of every monster in every monster manual ever either. For example, I have no gith or slaad in my setting, because I don't have limbo or an astral plane.

No one is telling you how to run your game. As Psyren accurately pointed out earlier the result of an internet discussion doesn't matter at a real table. If you don't like something it's well within your right to ban it or house rule it. But that doesn't change how the rules work.

For example, i've met a few people who don't allow retraining rules in PHBII because it doesn't make sense to them that people can forget what they've learned. Do they have to include retraining rules in their game? No. Should a player point out that by RAW retraining is no different than switching majors in college and try to force his DM to use something he doesn't want? Definitely No. But this does not change the fact that d&d 3.5 has retraining rules and if you follow them as is players can switch school specialization every single level.

Same thing here. Are any of us forcing you to include gith or slaad in your setting? No. Are any of us forcing you to include advanced creatures in your setting? Also no. Are any of us forcing you to let players ignore simulacrum's material component? Also no and there's nothing wrong with putting your foot down as DM and saying you can't ignore the material component because it unbalances your game. But ruled as written players can ignore the material components of simulacrum and create advanced creatures without needing to gate one in beforehand and what you do in your game and your rights as a DM has no impact on how the rules function.

I was under the impression we were having a ruled as written discussion because that's what this forum does. We only talk about how things work ruled as written here. If you're using the d&d 3.5 rule set as a tool for your own custom world then none of this matters. Nothing on the forums matter. Hell not even the books or the rules themselves matter. That's why it's called homebrew. But if you're sticking as close to the official setting as possible, ruled as written both you and Psyren are completely wrong about everything in this thread, and your right as a DM to ban or house rule things has no relevance.

[sorcererlover]

No one is telling you how to run your game. As Psyren accurately pointed out earlier the result of an internet discussion doesn't matter at a real table. If you don't like something it's well within your right to ban it or house rule it. But that doesn't change how the rules work.

For example, i've met a few people who don't allow retraining rules in PHBII because it doesn't make sense to them that people can forget what they've learned. Do they have to include retraining rules in their game? No. Should a player point out that by RAW retraining is no different than switching majors in college and try to force his DM to use something he doesn't want? Definitely No. But this does not change the fact that d&d 3.5 has retraining rules and if you follow them as is players can switch school specialization every single level.

Same thing here. Are any of us forcing you to include gith or slaad in your setting? No. Are any of us forcing you to include advanced creatures in your setting? Also no. Are any of us forcing you to let players ignore simulacrum's material component? Also no and there's nothing wrong with putting your foot down as DM and saying you can't ignore the material component because it unbalances your game. But ruled as written players can ignore the material components of simulacrum and create advanced creatures without needing to gate one in beforehand and what you do in your game and your rights as a DM has no impact on how the rules function.

I was under the impression we were having a ruled as written discussion because that's what this forum does. We only talk about how things work ruled as written here. If you're using the d&d 3.5 rule set as a tool for your own custom world then none of this matters. Nothing on the forums matter. Hell not even the books or the rules themselves matter. That's why it's called homebrew. But if you're sticking as close to the official setting as possible, ruled as written both you and Psyren are completely wrong about everything in this thread, and your right as a DM to ban or house rule things has no relevance.

Why are we even talking about some homebrew setting? Every single post you and RoboEmperor said had RAW or Ruled as Written written in it. So why do people keep bringing up homebrew?


I was under the impression we were having a ruled as written discussion because that's what this forum does. We only talk about how things work ruled as written here

The reason we talk about RAW on these forums because we need a common base for any discussion to happen. And when we don't this is exactly what happens. People going in circles repeating everything over and over because a couple of people for some reason decide to talk about their own homebrew thing and ignore the RAW that proves them wrong because they decide to exclude that rule or house rule differently in their homebrew setting.

In the official core-only setting that is greyhawk all advanced creatures exist and they are generic non-unique and available for simulacrum should the player find a way to ignore the material component, and by extension all advanced creatures are up for grabs with Polymorph spells and Gate. Pick any page of this thread for proof. Everything has repeated over and over and over again.


If you are dictating to a DM which variant/improved versions of monsters "definitely exist" in their setting because of an epic PrC and a handful of exceptions, then yes, I do think that is unreasonable. The DM owns the advancement rules by default, as the rules I've quoted show.

A person shoving rules in the DMs face to get his munchkin shtick is unreasonable.

No one is dictating anything to a DM. So why do you keep acting like RoboEmperor is a munchkin rule lawyer telling DMs how to run their game like a problem player when we're having a scholarly debate about RAW on the internet? You're intentionally trying to portray him like a bad guy here when he's done nothing except dig up archaic RAW that we'd never have known if it weren't for him. Or are you his DM and you two are having a RAW debate about your table here?