PDA

View Full Version : Rules Q&A simulacrum and amputated limbs



newguydude1
2020-11-24, 03:55 PM
i need rubies for suffer the flesh material component. and ive been brainstorming ways to get them. and one thing i found is....
ruby golem! a golem made of rubies.
so the genius thought i had was i create a simulacrum of a ruby golem via mirror mephit, lop off its limbs, and then use said limbs for material components for suffer the flesh.

so heres the snag.

If reduced to 0 hit points or otherwise destroyed, it reverts to snow and melts instantly into nothingness.

imo, this means that amputated limbs of simulacra arent reverted into snow until the main creature is dead. so i can exercise my plan. maybe even use the entire golem as a material component. its body is worth 10,000gp so annihilating him should more than suffice right?

am i right? what are your thoughts?

InvisibleBison
2020-11-24, 05:31 PM
Simulacrum is an Illusion (Shadow), which means that it "creates something that is partially real from extradimensional energy." (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#shadow) In other words, a simulacrum of a ruby golem isn't made of rubies, but of snow that's been partially transformed into a ruby (whatever that means). Regardless of whether or not a severed limb remains affected or reverts to snow, I'd say it wouldn't be usable as a material component for a spell that required rubies.

newguydude1
2020-11-24, 05:51 PM
Simulacrum is an Illusion (Shadow), which means that it "creates something that is partially real from extradimensional energy." (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#shadow) In other words, a simulacrum of a ruby golem isn't made of rubies, but of snow that's been partially transformed into a ruby (whatever that means). Regardless of whether or not a severed limb remains affected or reverts to snow, I'd say it wouldn't be usable as a material component for a spell that required rubies.

except shadow conjuration explicitly uses 100% of material components from shadow stuff. so shadow stuff is real enough for material components.

so is shadow conjuration wall of stone or iron. 100% sure these things can be used as material components as well, albeit maybe with a chance of failure? need to brush up on the shadow rules again.

InvisibleBison
2020-11-24, 07:36 PM
except shadow conjuration explicitly uses 100% of material components from shadow stuff. so shadow stuff is real enough for material components.

so is shadow conjuration wall of stone or iron. 100% sure these things can be used as material components as well, albeit maybe with a chance of failure? need to brush up on the shadow rules again.

I've just been looking at the SRD entry for the (Shadow) subschool. Are there additional rules elsewhere about shadow spells?

newguydude1
2020-11-25, 02:01 AM
I've just been looking at the SRD entry for the (Shadow) subschool. Are there additional rules elsewhere about shadow spells?

nope. i dont think so. using shadow stuff as material components is only mentioned in shadow conjuration.
only other place i could think of is the description in every shadow spell in existence, and none of them talk about material components, at least not the ones i looked at. like that shadow walk spell or spectral weapon spell.

unseenmage
2020-11-25, 11:22 AM
Yeah it works. But no no one will let you because Simulacrum is too strong.

Why ruby golem when animated object ruby statue could do?

Alternatively, a resetting magic trap of the True Creation spell would be just as cheesey.

InvisibleBison
2020-11-25, 11:27 AM
using shadow stuff as material components is only mentioned in shadow conjuration.

Shadow conjuration (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shadowConjuration.htm) doesn't say anything about using its products as material components.

newguydude1
2020-11-25, 11:49 AM
Yeah it works. But no no one will let you because Simulacrum is too strong.

Why ruby golem when animated object ruby statue could do?

Alternatively, a resetting magic trap of the True Creation spell would be just as cheesey.

one is used as is in the mm entry therefore its a "non-unique" creature, as described in the shapechange spell.
the other is, well, a lot more prone to "it doesnt exist so you cant make a simulacrum of it"