why do people treat mirror mephits as taboo?

[newguydude1]

it always confused me.

mephits have been improved familiars since 3.0.
the mirror mephit section has a for player characters section
they even give you a spell that summons a mirror mephit.
and they make it clear this monster is not a setting specific monster. in fact its the only monster ever described to reside in the plane of mirrors.

so wotc 100% intends players to have mirror mephits. so why people treat them as taboo?

[Bullet06320]

it always confused me.

mephits have been improved familiars since 3.0.
the mirror mephit section has a for player characters section
they even give you a spell that summons a mirror mephit.
and they make it clear this monster is not a setting specific monster. in fact its the only monster ever described to reside in the plane of mirrors.

so wotc 100% intends players to have mirror mephits. so why people treat them as taboo?

sla simulacrum 1/day no material component, no xp loss, which opens up all sort of simulacrum fun

[NigelWalmsley]

3.0 Wish has a cap on how expensive of a magic item you can create. 3.5 Wish doesn't. On that basis, there's a reasonable argument that WotC intended the kind of SLA Wish cheese that The Wish and The Word exploit. Yet people still consider it taboo. Why? Because it's broken. Like, super broken. Similarly, no one is going to tell you that your TO build that uses Mirror Mephits for <cheesy trick> isn't legal, they're just not going to let you play it in an actual game because people don't let you play TO nonsense in actual games.

[InvisibleBison]

Because WotC didn't know what they were doing when they made the game, and playing according to their intent (to the extent that it can be discerned) leads to a sub-optimal gaming experience.

[icefractal]

Because Mirror Mephits say the quiet part out loud, and in the majority of campaigns it would just result in Simulacrum being banned.

Simulacrum is fun, and I love using it. But it's also something that becomes broken with "overuse", and the exact line where it happens is fuzzy. Being a 13th level caster and spending resources for a single minion? Ok, that seems reasonable. Even having additional ones guarding your tower or in reserve? Sure, that's mostly flavor.

Being a 17th level caster and using Astral Projection to have as many as you want? Well, that's pushing the line, but you are well into crazy high-power town at that point, and so if you're not bogging things down by bringing an army with you then it's probably fine.

Being a low-level caster and getting unlimited all-you-can-eat Simulacra which are significantly more powerful than you yourself are? That's the kind of thing that makes GMs at least ban Mirror Mephit, if not Simulacrum entirely.

[Troacctid]

the mirror mephit section has a for player characters section
I don't know if this is a good argument, since they're not, in fact, listed as a familiar option in this section, and the spell that summons them prevents them from conjuring any other creatures.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I don't know if this is a good argument, since they're not, in fact, listed as a familiar option in this section, and the spell that summons them prevents them from conjuring any other creatures.Does it say "conjure"? Because simulacrum's an Illusion spell, not Conjuration, so that wouldn't apply, if so...

[newguydude1]

3.0 Wish has a cap on how expensive of a magic item you can create. 3.5 Wish doesn't. On that basis, there's a reasonable argument that WotC intended the kind of SLA Wish cheese that The Wish and The Word exploit. Yet people still consider it taboo. Why? Because it's broken. Like, super broken. Similarly, no one is going to tell you that your TO build that uses Mirror Mephits for <cheesy trick> isn't legal, they're just not going to let you play it in an actual game because people don't let you play TO nonsense in actual games.

people still use wish with restrictions. most common one i saw is they ban anything that makes it free.

age of worms has a npc that has an efreeti as a pet that boosted all of his stats by +3 through free wishes. so even official content makers use free wishes. so why cant i?


Being a low-level caster and getting unlimited all-you-can-eat Simulacra which are significantly more powerful than you yourself are? That's the kind of thing that makes GMs at least ban Mirror Mephit, if not Simulacrum entirely.

only problem here is the numbers not the quality. 8hd perform worse than proper mundanes in combat. its not even close. so limit it to 1.

i know theres that fallacy that says "if it needs to be fixed, then its not balanced" or something like that. but since literally everything in d&d is modified by dms, why isnt this one instead of being banned?


Does it say "conjure"? Because simulacrum's an Illusion spell, not Conjuration, so that wouldn't apply, if so...

prismatic sphere is said to be conjured so it does apply. cause conjure is not restricted to conjuration.


I don't know if this is a good argument, since they're not, in fact, listed as a familiar option in this section, and the spell that summons them prevents them from conjuring any other creatures.

thats just a typical copy and paste of the summoning rules. the monster is designed for player character use.

[Elves]

so why cant i?
You can. No one is arguing they aren't legal. You be the judge of at what point they turn your game into a trainwreck.

[Thunder999]

It's not a matter of legality, free simulacrum is just utterly broken.
We will likely never know just why WotC thought it was a good idea and I certainly haven't got anything positive to say about their decision.

[icefractal]

only problem here is the numbers not the quality. 8hd perform worse than proper mundanes in combat. its not even close. so limit it to 1.Given that those 8 HD could be an 8th level "proper mundane", I kind of doubt that. Or for that matter, they could be an 8th level spellcaster.

Not to mention, if someone is delving into somewhat obscure stuff like Mirror Mephits, they can easily find creatures that are highly effective to copy - it's not going to be mediocre stuff.


i know theres that fallacy that says "if it needs to be fixed, then its not balanced" or something like that. but since literally everything in d&d is modified by dms, why isnt this one instead of being banned?Well, if I was GMing I would modify rather than remove it. In two simple ways:
1) Limit one active and one passive combat minion per PC. Equally a practicality thing as a balance one, I don't want combat grinding to a crawl.
2) Simulacrum is good value as a 7th level spell. It doesn't need to be given out earlier than that.

[Kitsuneymg]

Because Pun Pun already killed them all.

[gogogome]

2) Simulacrum is good value as a 7th level spell. It doesn't need to be given out earlier than that.

I disagree with this part. Some of my players like to build one trick ponies. If that trick is simulacrum I'm not going to force them to wait until level 13 before they start enjoying their character. 1 combat simualcrum whose CR is equal to or less than the party ECL is more than enough. I would not allow both a combat and passive minion out. Only one.

[magicalmagicman]

I don't know if this is a good argument, since they're not, in fact, listed as a familiar option in this section, and the spell that summons them prevents them from conjuring any other creatures.

The monster entry says mirror mephits seek alliances with wizards. If that's not a familiar then I don't know what is.

[Kelb_Panthera]

My go-to fix for both simulacrum and its big brother ice assassin is a simple one. Nothing; not being a SLA, an SU, nor even a spell from an item; can bypass the requirement that you have a piece of the creature to be copied. You can get past all the rest with the usual tricks since they're all high enough up the optimization table they should get -some- payoff but if you don't have a scrap of hair/fur/fingernail/claw/etc then you're not making a copy of anybody or anything, period.

Also, one simulacrum per copied target per caster. You want 15 ghouls, you've got to get samples from 15 ghouls or you've got to get 15 caster buddies to take samples from the one you have or some other combination of casters and sample creatures. (Don't overthink the example, it's just literally the first creature to spring into my mind.)

[gogogome]

My go-to fix for both simulacrum and its big brother ice assassin is a simple one. Nothing; not being a SLA, an SU, nor even a spell from an item; can bypass the requirement that you have a piece of the creature to be copied. You can get past all the rest with the usual tricks since they're all high enough up the optimization table they should get -some- payoff but if you don't have a scrap of hair/fur/fingernail/claw/etc then you're not making a copy of anybody or anything, period.

Also, one simulacrum per copied target per caster. You want 15 ghouls, you've got to get samples from 15 ghouls or you've got to get 15 caster buddies to take samples from the one you have or some other combination of casters and sample creatures. (Don't overthink the example, it's just literally the first creature to spring into my mind.)

Two things.

First, a half hd simulacrum is worthless except for its slas, unless the DM also homebrews caster levels and save dcs in half, which makes them entirely worthless. So its not a "fix" if you render a spell worthless.

Second, summon component is a first level spell that creates the scrap of hair/fur/fingernail/claw. All your "fix" does is render eschew materials worthless.

[icefractal]

1 combat simualcrum whose CR is equal to or less than the party ECL is more than enough. I would not allow both a combat and passive minion out. Only one.Ok, but that's not at all what a Mirror Mephit does. It gives you as many CR 8ish Simulacra as you want. It'd be a lot simpler and cleaner to homebrew a Lesser Simulacrum spell.


First, a half hd simulacrum is worthless except for its slas, unless the DM also homebrews caster levels and save dcs in half, which makes them entirely worthless. So its not a "fix" if you render a spell worthless.

Second, summon component is a first level spell that creates the scrap of hair/fur/fingernail/claw. All your "fix" does is render eschew materials worthless.
How's a half-strength copy of a creature twice as strong as you worthless? Heck, some creatures are useful at much lower than that. And yes, I'm including SLAs in that, not sure how it would be "half strength" otherwise.

Eschew Materials is a fairly minor feat that avoids needing a spell-component pouch. Not being able to ignore artifacts and god eyelashes doesn't make it pointless, it's just not that strong a feat. Also I'm assuming that "can't be ignored by any means" includes no Summon Component, no "spell component pouch holds everything", no "SLAs don't have components", even no "Wish for a scroll of it".

Given how much information a Simulacrum reveals about the target (even assuming no specific memories, obviously it's total exposure if it does have them), not even having the one defense (never let a scrap of your hair or drop of your blood be collected) against that leaves high-level characters with high-level foes pretty screwed. As a player, I'd rather be able to still have secrets at 13th+ level.

[Kelb_Panthera]

First, a half hd simulacrum is worthless except for its slas, unless the DM also homebrews caster levels and save dcs in half, which makes them entirely worthless. So its not a "fix" if you render a spell worthless.

Half the original with that original being limited to twice your CL. That is to say, the final copy-creature can have up to the same HD as the caster if the caster has never given up a CL. The way people around here think, it'll almost certainly mean a few more HD than the caster.

That's only useless if you're copying something that's just a pile of HD with almost no features. There can be all kinds of special abilities on the copy-creature that the lost HD only reduce their odds of hitting by a degree that's perfectly acceptable.


Second, summon component is a first level spell that creates the scrap of hair/fur/fingernail/claw. All your "fix" does is render eschew materials worthless.

The list was explanatory, not exhaustive. When I said -nothing- I meant nothing lets you get around having to go get it. If you cast summon component, the copy-illusion spell would simply fizzle.

Not that summon component works for these spells anyway. The summoned component lasts one round and both spells take substantially longer to cast.

If they want to wish up a specific creature or gate one in then we're already talking 9ths anyway so I'm less concerned about that. I banned the gate function of the candle of invocation long ago.

[NigelWalmsley]

First, a half hd simulacrum is worthless except for its slas, unless the DM also homebrews caster levels and save dcs in half, which makes them entirely worthless. So its not a "fix" if you render a spell worthless.

That's... not even remotely true. There are plenty of offensive, defensive, or utility options that don't depend much (if at all) on level. Just making Simulacra of yourself and having them follow you around and cast those spells is already pretty incredibly powerful (e.g. as a 14th level character, your Simulacra can cast Enervation). If you're playing at a power level where that's "worthless", you're operating well outside the norm for even optimized characters.

[gogogome]

How's a half-strength copy of a creature twice as strong as you worthless? Heck, some creatures are useful at much lower than that. And yes, I'm including SLAs in that, not sure how it would be "half strength" otherwise.

Lets use some examples. A mirror mephits simualcrum is capped at cl8 without additional optimization. A 16hd advanced Zelekhut cut in half is 8hd. He does 30.5 damage if both of his spiked chains hit at +10 attack.

A 16 hd stone golem cut in half to 8hd. From the base 14hd stat block, he loses 1 strength and 4 BAB for a grand total of 38 damage at +14 attack if both of his slams hit.

Both are a joke compared to 8th level fighters.


That's... not even remotely true. There are plenty of offensive, defensive, or utility options that don't depend much (if at all) on level. Just making Simulacra of yourself and having them follow you around and cast those spells is already pretty incredibly powerful (e.g. as a 14th level character, your Simulacra can cast Enervation). If you're playing at a power level where that's "worthless", you're operating well outside the norm for even optimized characters.

Every creature at 14th level has spell resistance. Your simulacra ain't doing jack except no-save no-sr minor bfc which is an annoyance at best. If your playing at a level where you can land enervations at -7 caster level then you're playing at a power level well below the norm for optimized tables.

[InvisibleBison]

I disagree with this part. Some of my players like to build one trick ponies. If that trick is simulacrum I'm not going to force them to wait until level 13 before they start enjoying their character.

I disagree with this part. A person who relies on simulacra to accomplish things is a high-level character concept. I don't think it's appropriate to bring a high-level character concept to a low-level game.

[gogogome]

I disagree with this part. A person who relies on simulacra to accomplish things is a high-level character concept. I don't think it's appropriate to bring a high-level character concept to a low-level game.

So a player of mine wants to play a minion master. But summon monster is unusable due to its short duration, being only able to cast it 2-3 times per day, and it being significantly lackluster especially compared to optimized mundanes and gishes.

So naturally he looks up this forum for solutions.
He finds that a 5th level wizard can get a colossal animated object via Animate Weapon, and by concentrating on it all day he can have his permanent minion that can pull his weight compared to optimized mundanes and gishes.
He finds that Artificers can get 10min/level animated objects at 1st level with personal weapon augmentation.
He finds that he can use DMM Fell Animate on animal companions and get zombies at 1st level.
There's also Planar Binding which needs no explanation

And many, many more.

I looked at using simulacrum to get him his minion instead of using any of the above and I OK'd it because with the 1minion restriction and the CR restriction, I don't see how its any more stronger than any of the above.

So I don't see how this is a "high-level character concept" when low level characters are grabbing powerful beatsticks with low level spells.

[NigelWalmsley]

Every creature at 14th level has spell resistance. Your simulacra ain't doing jack except no-save no-sr minor bfc which is an annoyance at best. If your playing at a level where you can land enervations at -7 caster level then you're playing at a power level well below the norm for optimized tables.

You understand that this is something people can just check, right? Because you are literally factually wrong, even in Core (though I will grant that the primary exception, the Werewolf Lord, is not doing much of anything at the point where "a bunch of Simulacra" is a reasonable level of optimization).

But it's not just that you obviously haven't done the research, it's that you're fractally wrong. Because even if we consider just the creatures with spell resistance, it's generally not high enough to ignore Simulacra. Of the (core) creatures with spell resistance, only two (the Astral Deva and the Trumpet Archon) have enough to ignore a CL 7 caster. I suppose we can lump the Nightwing in there too, because your Simulacra would need to roll a natural 20, and it's immune to Enervation anyway. But the Dragons (SR 21) and the Nalfeshnee (SR 22), while resistant to spells from your Simulacra, are far from immune. Having a 30% or 35% chance of succeeding is unimpressive if it's just you, but the whole thing about Simulacra is that there are a bunch of them.

And that's all assuming that, despite choosing a build that is highly vulnerable to SR, you've done nothing to optimize against it. If you're planning to cart around a bunch of Simulacra at high levels, you could invest in (Greater) Spell Penetration, which jumps up your chances significantly. Alternatively, you could just learn Assay Spell Resistance, which actually puts Simulacra ahead of your (unmodified) check. Or you could just boost your caster level directly. Really, there's a lot of options here, and you should be taking advantage of them if you want to use Simulacra to solve your problems.

I have no idea why you think your Simulacra would need to rely on no-save spells at all. Their DCs are, at worst, marginally lower than yours for any given spell. It's true that they're using lower level spells, but if your spell DCs are low enough for that to overcome the iterative probability advantages inherent in Simulacra, you're doing something wrong.

Finally, even if we assume that every single creature has SR that your Simulacra cannot overcome, that your DCs are so bad that a ~5 point penalty makes spells completely useless, and that you've done absolutely nothing to mitigate either of these problems, you still don't need to rely on crappy BFC spells. You can just use the various Orb spells, which are no-save (for the damage) and SR:No. A volley of those from your Simulacra should put a dent in anything you're fighting.

[gogogome]

You understand that this is something people can just check, right? Because you are literally factually wrong, even in Core (though I will grant that the primary exception, the Werewolf Lord, is not doing much of anything at the point where "a bunch of Simulacra" is a reasonable level of optimization).

But it's not just that you obviously haven't done the research, it's that you're fractally wrong. Because even if we consider just the creatures with spell resistance, it's generally not high enough to ignore Simulacra. Of the (core) creatures with spell resistance, only two (the Astral Deva and the Trumpet Archon) have enough to ignore a CL 7 caster. I suppose we can lump the Nightwing in there too, because your Simulacra would need to roll a natural 20, and it's immune to Enervation anyway. But the Dragons (SR 21) and the Nalfeshnee (SR 22), while resistant to spells from your Simulacra, are far from immune. Having a 30% or 35% chance of succeeding is unimpressive if it's just you, but the whole thing about Simulacra is that there are a bunch of them.

And that's all assuming that, despite choosing a build that is highly vulnerable to SR, you've done nothing to optimize against it. If you're planning to cart around a bunch of Simulacra at high levels, you could invest in (Greater) Spell Penetration, which jumps up your chances significantly. Alternatively, you could just learn Assay Spell Resistance, which actually puts Simulacra ahead of your (unmodified) check. Or you could just boost your caster level directly. Really, there's a lot of options here, and you should be taking advantage of them if you want to use Simulacra to solve your problems.

I have no idea why you think your Simulacra would need to rely on no-save spells at all. Their DCs are, at worst, marginally lower than yours for any given spell. It's true that they're using lower level spells, but if your spell DCs are low enough for that to overcome the iterative probability advantages inherent in Simulacra, you're doing something wrong.

Finally, even if we assume that every single creature has SR that your Simulacra cannot overcome, that your DCs are so bad that a ~5 point penalty makes spells completely useless, and that you've done absolutely nothing to mitigate either of these problems, you still don't need to rely on crappy BFC spells. You can just use the various Orb spells, which are no-save (for the damage) and SR:No. A volley of those from your Simulacra should put a dent in anything you're fighting.

I suggest you play test before you go on here.

You don't need spell immunity via spell resistance. I'd say even a 50% chance of success is too low.
Your simulacra has what, 2? 3? enervations before he's out of enervations?
Your gonna waste your own spell slot and actions to help land an enervation instead of casting a 7th level spell?
Your gonna waste your own low level feat slots to give your simulacrum spell penetration and greater spell penetration?
And your assuming these encounters are 4v1 only? Because in a 4v4 I guarantee you spending so much effort to land a few enervations is really subpar. If you want to use enervation you use metamagic stacked ones yourself, not this... whatever it is you're trying to do here.

The scenario was one simulacrum. Now we're talking about an entire army?

Everything you said is just absolutely ludicrous from an optimized table point of view. So I don't know what to say. Other than perhaps play at one first.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe my players aren't munchkin-y enough. But everything you said is nowhere near munchkin.

[NigelWalmsley]

You don't need spell immunity via spell resistance. I'd say even a 50% chance of success is too low.

That seems like an informed claim that is backed by reasoned analysis.


Your simulacra has what, 2? 3? enervations before he's out of enervations?

Each, but sure. What's the point here, exactly?


Your gonna waste your own spell slot and actions to help land an enervation instead of casting a 7th level spell?

I suggest you go re-read Assay Spell Resistance.


Your gonna waste your own low level feat slots to give your simulacrum spell penetration and greater spell penetration?

If your build is going to specialize in something, you should expect to spend resources on it.


And your assuming these encounters are 4v1 only? Because in a 4v4 I guarantee you spending so much effort to land a few enervations is really subpar. If you want to use enervation you use metamagic stacked ones yourself, not this... whatever it is you're trying to do here.

I'll take "what is 'action economy'" for 400 GP.


The scenario was one simulacrum. Now we're talking about an entire army?

Maybe someone's was. I was taking issue with the assertion that a half-HD Simulacrum is worthless. If you go back and read my first post, I've always been assuming more than one (you can tell from how I use the plural). But ultimately it doesn't matter that much, because it's all relative. If you're playing a balance point where one Simulacrum is appropriate, it can do all these things at that rate. If you're playing at a balance point where one isn't appropriate, obviously one won't be good enough, but why would you enforce that restriction if you are? If you want to make some more abstract argument about how Simulacrum is a "bad rate" in whatever sense, you can do that, but as far as I can tell you haven't.


So a player of mine wants to play a minion master. But summon monster is unusable due to its short duration, being only able to cast it 2-3 times per day, and it being significantly lackluster especially compared to optimized mundanes and gishes.

Might I suggest the Summoner (https://dungeons.fandom.com/wiki/Summoner_(3.5e_Class)) as an alternative to breaking the game into small pieces? That lets you play an effective minionmancer from 1st level. Alternatively, just give the guy a Druid.

[Gnaeus]

For that matter, why beat SR at all? Let’s say you have 4, just to keep the party size reasonable. And they spend the first round of every combat casting Greater Invisibility on your fighter, Polymorphing your fighter into some appropriate weapon using form with reach. Hasting the party. And the last one walks to 5 feet from where your fighter wants to be and then uses benign transposition. That alone is going to radically alter most encounters.

[InvisibleBison]

So I don't see how this is a "high-level character concept" when low level characters are grabbing powerful beatsticks with low level spells.

"A guy who uses simulacrum" is a high-level character concept because simulacrum is a high-level spell.

[gogogome]

Maybe someone's was. I was taking issue with the assertion that a half-HD Simulacrum is worthless. If you go back and read my first post, I've always been assuming more than one (you can tell from how I use the plural). But ultimately it doesn't matter that much, because it's all relative. If you're playing a balance point where one Simulacrum is appropriate, it can do all these things at that rate. If you're playing at a balance point where one isn't appropriate, obviously one won't be good enough, but why would you enforce that restriction if you are? If you want to make some more abstract argument about how Simulacrum is a "bad rate" in whatever sense, you can do that, but as far as I can tell you haven't.

That "someone" is both me and Kelb_Pantera. We were talking about the strength of simulacra when we have only one or one copy per creature and I was asserting that a half hd simulacra are worthless in combat.

And then you interjected saying that's not remotely true by using an enervation wizard as your example. {Scrubbed}

And now you're saying having infinite enervation wizards is strong. Which is ridiculous too. If you dont limit simulacra to 1 the entire world will collapse under the weight of quadrillions of quadrillions of mirror mephits spawned over a few days. {Scrubbed}

So what is the point of this discussion? When limited to one, half hd simulacra of yourself is worthless. When unlimited, making half hd simulacra of yourself is not even close to what you could be doing.


Might I suggest the Summoner (https://dungeons.fandom.com/wiki/Summoner_(3.5e_Class)) as an alternative to breaking the game into small pieces? That lets you play an effective minionmancer from 1st level. Alternatively, just give the guy a Druid.

The game doesn't break into small pieces. Not even close.

I don't use homebrew. There is enough rules in 3.5 to do virtually everything and my player can get what he wants with these rules so why would I turn to unofficial 3rd party content that doesn't even have the wotc stamp on it?


That seems like an informed claim that is backed by reasoned analysis.

{Scrubbed}

Even at lower optimizations there's a reason why even 5% arcane spell failure is unacceptable.

I am confused at the point you're trying to make here {Scrubbed} so I will be taking my leave of this discussion here.


For that matter, why beat SR at all?

Yes. The more optimized builds don't deal with SR at all. Which is why someone claiming a wizard half your level casting enervation being really strong is ridiculous.

[NigelWalmsley]

I was asserting that a half hd simulacra are worthless in combat.

And that assertion is quite obviously false. There are lots of things you can do with a half-HD Simulacrum that are useful. Enervation is one of them. Orbs are another. Utility spells are another. Frankly, it's better than most Simulacra you are going to have a reasonable chance of making.


And now you're saying having infinite enervation wizards is strong.

That's not remotely what I'm saying. If you have just six Simulacra, you get to start every fight with an Energy Drain that costs you no actions or spell slots. Or 42d6 no-save no-SR damage. Or a bunch of Silent Images. Like, if you can't think of a use for a bunch of low level spells that don't cost actions or slots, you are genuinely very bad at optimization, regardless of how loudly you declare that I don't understand optimized play.


I don't use homebrew. There is enough rules in 3.5 to do virtually everything and my player can get what he wants with these rules so why would I turn to unofficial 3rd party content that doesn't even have the wotc stamp on it?

Who cares if it has the WotC stamp on it? Truenamer has the WotC stamp on it, doesn't make it good. Summoner does the exact thing you're asking for (minionmancy from level one) without jumping through bizarre hoops and allowing game-breaking nonsense. If "exactly solves your problem" is less important to you than "published by the same people as the Monk", I would consider your priorities to be somewhat misaligned.


Even at lower optimizations there's a reason even 5% arcane spell failure is unacceptable.

And if you knew what that reason was, you'd understand why you're wrong. Hint: it's related to that 'action economy' thing I mentioned.


Yes. The more optimized builds don't deal with SR at all. Which is why someone claiming a wizard half your level casting enervation being really strong is ridiculous.

Hey, you remember how you said the only thing the Simulacrum could do was no-save no-SR BFC? You don't get to claim that the stuff Gnaeus was talking about proves your point when you explicitly listed the things a Simulacrum could do and did not include them. It doesn't matter if my specific off-the-cuff example doesn't impress you. If there's anything that does, you were wrong when you said it was "worthless".

[denthor]

1. I did not know they existed. So more than likely your mage does not either.

2. If they break a game they should not exist.

3. Any DM that allows this better have a quest for the knowledge. Then have restrictions(excessive cost, you must worship a god of knowledge) on how you summon this thing and had best give you a mortal enemy(most likely another organized religion).

Choice have consequences attached.

[newguydude1]

Hey, you remember how you said the only thing the Simulacrum could do was no-save no-SR BFC? You don't get to claim that the stuff Gnaeus was talking about proves your point when you explicitly listed the things a Simulacrum could do and did not include them. It doesn't matter if my specific off-the-cuff example doesn't impress you. If there's anything that does, you were wrong when you said it was "worthless".

cl 7 polymorph is worthless though. war troll is 12hd.
greater invisibility is worthless too. monsters have spot and listen in the 20s. and any dm worth their salt is gonna have monsters carry around flour. sure that might take up an action but thats what a minor bfc is. an action waster. haste is a minor bfc too.


That's not remotely what I'm saying. If you have just six Simulacra, you get to start every fight with an Energy Drain that costs you no actions or spell slots. Or 42d6 no-save no-SR damage. Or a bunch of Silent Images. Like, if you can't think of a use for a bunch of low level spells that don't cost actions or slots, you are genuinely very bad at optimization, regardless of how loudly you declare that I don't understand optimized play.

why six? why not twenty? why not a hundred? why not a thousand? they were talking about one. you suddenly talk about six but not twenty or a hundred.

gogogome is right. half hd simulacra are worthless. i use mirror mephits in my game and even full hd monsters are subpar. no damage, just grapple or body block. even hydra sucks because damage reduction.


3. Any DM that allows this better have a quest for the knowledge. Then have restrictions(excessive cost, you must worship a god of knowledge) on how you summon this thing and had best give you a mortal enemy(most likely another organized religion).

Choice have consequences attached.

i finished the quest by passing knowledge the planes. its the only monster in the plane of mirrors so how hard is it to not know about them.

[NigelWalmsley]

why six? why not twenty? why not a hundred? why not a thousand? they were talking about one. you suddenly talk about six but not twenty or a hundred.

Why one? Why not six? If you can give me a principled argument for one, I'd be very impressed.

[newguydude1]

Why one? Why not six? If you can give me a principled argument for one, I'd be very impressed.

because 1 is the minimum amount you can have without it being 0?

you know what forget it.

[Gnaeus]

cl 7 polymorph is worthless though. war troll is 12hd.
greater invisibility is worthless too. monsters have spot and listen in the 20s. and any dm worth their salt is gonna have monsters carry around flour. sure that might take up an action but thats what a minor bfc is. an action waster. haste is a minor bfc too..

1. Haste is one of the most effective damage spells in the game. Also BFC is BattleFieldControl. Haste is a buff since you didn’t know.

2. War Troll is a good form. It isn’t the only good form. And if you are doing SOMETHING BETTER WITH YOUR ACTIONS than giving the fighter reach and a damage buff and stat buff, there are plenty of 7HD forms that are well worth the 0 actions you spend.

3. The claim that every monster carries flower is ridiculous. Also, the claim that making a high level high SR monster spend its entire turn pulling out and throwing flour isn’t worth an action cost of 0 actions is sillier. Also the 7th level wizard can just cast gust of wind on your large fighter and blow the flour away. So the simulacrum is now trading actions one for one with your high level high SR monster. Also, the point of greater Invisibility isn’t that they don’t know where the tank is. It is to give him +2 to hit against flat footed AC and 50% concealment.

[newguydude1]

1. Haste is one of the most effective damage spells in the game. Also BFC is BattleFieldControl. Haste is a buff since you didn’t know.

nah im not impressed with haste. id take girallons blessing over haste. or if were talking about fighters not monsters id give him fly so he can charge over stuff. buffs and debuffs are battlefield control.


2. War Troll is a good form. It isn’t the only good form. And if you are doing SOMETHING BETTER WITH YOUR ACTIONS than giving the fighter reach and a damage buff and stat buff, there are plenty of 7HD forms that are well worth the 0 actions you spend.

reach is minor. its not bad but its not great either. neither is enlarge person and that gives reach and damage too. i rather prepare an extra extended girallons blessing or magic circle against evil than a polymorph.

minor is minor. minor isnt bad but its still minor. not worth a 4th level slot. since were buffing a pc instead of a monster id get enlarge person. flying forms are terrible too because maneuverability stuff. perparing fly is always better. lower level too. and fly is minor.


3. The claim that every monster carries flower is ridiculous. Also, the claim that making a high level high SR monster spend its entire turn pulling out and throwing flour isn’t worth an action cost of 0 actions is sillier. Also the 7th level wizard can just cast gust of wind on your large fighter and blow the flour away. So the simulacrum is now trading actions one for one with your high level high SR monster. Also, the point of greater Invisibility isn’t that they don’t know where the tank is. It is to give him +2 to hit against flat footed AC and 50% concealment.

my dm has his mook soldiers carry a standard mundane kit which includes flour since invisibility is prevalent and must be addressed. he also has a few alchemical items in there too like sun rods or tanglefoot bags. dont know all of it cause i dont care about mundane items and my strategy is ram into them and chop em up.

[Xervous]

buffs and debuffs are battlefield control.

Quite frankly neither buffs nor debuffs are inherently BFC. We’ve got more than two decades of consistent use of the term to provide us a clear understanding of it and no revolutionary agenda pushing a new term. I will grant that debuffs are frequently BFC, but if fly or haste are BFC then you’ve cast the net too wide and have a meaningless term.

[icefractal]

Oh, I see. Yes, if you use Simulacrum for nearly its least useful purpose (a big meatshield) and go with MM1 stock options rather than anything optimized (can't say a Sim is crap next to an optimized martial when it can be an optimized martial) it won't look that impressive.

That's not what I was expecting, because Mirror Mephit is a pretty optimized / dumpster-diving method to get them. Kind of like being a Persist-o-mancer but just using that to be reasonably effective with sword-n-board style.

I still think that these two:
* One Sim with CR = APL
* Unlimited Sims of HD 16- creatures, any CR

Are very substantially different, and it would make more sense to homebrew the former than to try to kludge it with the latter.

[Gnaeus]

nah im not impressed with haste. id take girallons blessing over haste. or if were talking about fighters not monsters id give him fly so he can charge over stuff. buffs and debuffs are battlefield control.



reach is minor. its not bad but its not great either. neither is enlarge person and that gives reach and damage too. i rather prepare an extra extended girallons blessing or magic circle against evil than a polymorph.

minor is minor. minor isnt bad but its still minor. not worth a 4th level slot. since were buffing a pc instead of a monster id get enlarge person. flying forms are terrible too because maneuverability stuff. perparing fly is always better. lower level too. and fly is minor.



my dm has his mook soldiers carry a standard mundane kit which includes flour since invisibility is prevalent and must be addressed. he also has a few alchemical items in there too like sun rods or tanglefoot bags. dont know all of it cause i dont care about mundane items and my strategy is ram into them and chop em up.

As noted, your concept of BFC is unrelated to how the rest of the forum understands that term. BFC is walls, mists, things that otherwise take up space or block line of sight. A few Debuffs qualify, if they actually inhibit how bad guys act, like slow.

Your understanding of buff effectiveness is also flawed. But it isn’t worth debating what is better when a handful of simulacra can prepare both, cast either, and cast the other on round 2. Reach is very important for melee fighters.

Just because your DM does something, doesn’t mean most do. I’ve never seen a mook soldier with a bag of flour. But, if all your fights contain lots of mook soldiers, the simulacra can trivially just kill the mook soldiers, which will not likely present SR difficulties. Simple expedients like filling rooms with multiple fireballs are designed for this. And on round 2-3 when the mooks are dead, a simple gust of wind neatly returns our fighter to invisibility, for all his murder and concealment needs.

[newguydude1]

planar binding is on par with simulacrum right? arbitrarily large number of monsters above your cl.

so why is planar binding accepted into games and people default to limiting number of player controlled outsider for balance without having to say anything, but when simulacrum tries to attempt the same thing people all go bat **** crazy over it? you dont see actual people go


1. I did not know they existed. So more than likely your mage does not either.

2. If they break a game they should not exist.

3. Any DM that allows this better have a quest for the knowledge. Then have restrictions(excessive cost, you must worship a god of knowledge) on how you summon this thing and had best give you a mortal enemy(most likely another organized religion).

Choice have consequences attached.

over planar binding. i mean i did see something like this regarding polymorph. dms who hate polymorph put out some kinda of weird restriction that only forms that you dissect are viable for polymorph or stuff like that but real people dont do that. and real people dont do interplanar hit squads for anyone using planar binding.

[Xervous]

planar binding is on par with simulacrum right? arbitrarily large number of monsters above your cl.

so why is planar binding accepted into games and people default to limiting number of player controlled outsider for balance without having to say anything, but when simulacrum tries to attempt the same thing people all go bat **** crazy over it?

Pretty sure both end up being banned or allowed together as they produce similar results and it’s the results that are objectionable.

[Gnaeus]

planar binding is on par with simulacrum right? arbitrarily large number of monsters above your cl.

so why is planar binding accepted into games and people default to limiting number of player controlled outsider for balance without having to say anything, but when simulacrum tries to attempt the same thing people all go bat **** crazy over it? you dont see actual people go



over planar binding. i mean i did see something like this regarding polymorph. dms who hate polymorph put out some kinda of weird restriction that only forms that you dissect are viable for polymorph or stuff like that but real people dont do that. and real people dont do interplanar hit squads for anyone using planar binding.

I absolutely don’t let players Planar Bind things that they don’t have the knowledges for. It isn’t usually much of an issue for wizards but it’s very important for sorcerers or other casters who borrowed the spell somehow. I don’t think the interplanar hit squads make much sense to me. But real people absolutely do that. Look at any PB discussion on this forum and you will totally see a strong contingent of people who swear by them. Me, I’d rather nerf or hard ban them than allow PB and then TPK anyone who uses it. But I only run the games I run.Your DM with his waves of flour sack bearing mooks isn’t the only way the game is played.

But you are right in the sense that planar binding is RAW legal, and very, very widely banned/nerfed. For the precise same reason. If you follow RAW and allow the wizard an arbitrary number of bound outsiders, anything that can’t cast planar binding, including other high tiers like cleric and Druid, are just obsolete. It’s strong but not game breaking with a house rule like “only one bound outsider at a time” or “any planar binding without paying suggested costs are automatically unreasonable and fail”. But it’s so easily abusable I would never assume PB is good in a game. I generally assume it doesn’t exist in discussions of class balance, because it shrinks the tier list down to 2. People who can cast planar binding and people who can’t. And the games that allow unlimited PB without gentleman’s agreements or the like aren’t much fun to me, because “and now I have a picnic on the front entrance while 50 angels clear the ruins” bears little resemblance to a D&D game.

RAW diplomacy is another one. The rules are clear but so easily abusable they crash the game at a very low level. “The king sends you on a mission” (epic diplomacy check) “Nah. I sit in his chair and tell him to go do it himself”. You can absolutely make a TO build that lets you enslave anyone who listens to you for 6 seconds. But RAW or no RAW, if someone asks what to play in a game and you respond with a Marshall/Warlock/bard (or worse, a jumplomancer) and try to sell it as enslaving everyone who talks to them, you will catch flack, justifiably.

[denthor]

i finished the quest by passing knowledge the planes. its the only monster in the plane of mirrors so how hard is it to not know about them.


You can have knowledge. This does not mean you automatically get something. We all have knowledge that for better health we should walk 30 minutes a day. How many do that?

We have knowledge about smoking kills. How many still smoke.

We have knowledge that driving fast leads to accidents. Many still drive excessive speeds.

Knowledge without action does not benefit you.

There is a reason these things are not common.

Maybe a level restrictions you need to 7th I think for an unusual familiar. Many wizards get their familiar at first. It should be noted that is your best friend. You do not trade them in like a car. This is why I am so adamant that unless a one shot pass fail. All games start at level 1 so that you must make these choices for prestige classes and take the handicap to qualify.

[Gnaeus]

Maybe a level restrictions you need to 7th I think for an unusual familiar. Many wizards get their familiar at first. It should be noted that is your best friend. You do not trade them in like a car. This is why I am so adamant that unless a one shot pass fail. All games start at level 1 so that you must make these choices for prestige classes and take the handicap to qualify.

I think the argument that you can’t Mirror Mephit because you can’t improved familiar is kinda throwing the baby out with the bath water. Imps and pseudo dragons are iconic and balanced.

Worse, Obtain Familiar is an easy feat. So if your goal was Mirror Mephit you could just trade away familiar and then retrain feats (or, given the optimization level of MM, psychic reformation). So not a big bar to entry.

[newguydude1]

I think the argument that you can’t Mirror Mephit because you can’t improved familiar is kinda throwing the baby out with the bath water. Imps and pseudo dragons are iconic and balanced.

Worse, Obtain Familiar is an easy feat. So if your goal was Mirror Mephit you could just trade away familiar and then retrain feats (or, given the optimization level of MM, psychic reformation). So not a big bar to entry.

its not even that hard.
1. dont get a familiar at level 1.
2. get a familiar at level 7.

or
3. retrain your familiar out.

Sorcerer or wizard Choice of familiar

[icefractal]

planar binding is on par with simulacrum right? arbitrarily large number of monsters above your cl.

so why is planar binding accepted into games and people default to limiting number of player controlled outsider for balance without having to say anything, but when simulacrum tries to attempt the same thing people all go bat **** crazy over it?The people who ban Simulacrum probably ban or restrict Planar Binding too.

However, I'm not one of them. The only thing I ban is getting Simulacrum many levels early and for free. Is it really that strange a concept that things can be appropriate for one level and not appropriate for a much earlier level? Like, Teleporting around the world is fine at 10th level. But I wouldn't support a "Teleport Mephit" that let you Teleport at-will at 4th level.

Also, Planar Binding is weaker than Simulacrum (limited duration, possibility to subvert orders, won't do suicidal things, can't be used to find out a foe's build, is a real creature who may tell people what you had it do), but it's also cheaper (free, if you don't mind them being angry at you) and available earlier, so that's fine.

[newguydude1]

Like, Teleporting around the world is fine at 10th level. But I wouldn't support a "Teleport Mephit" that let you Teleport at-will at 4th level.

theres a teleport archon at-will at 3rd level.

[icefractal]

theres a teleport archon at-will at 3rd level.
And I don't support that. :smalltongue:
Although IIRC you need a Portable Hole to take full advantage of it.

While "you can never have new capabilities, your numbers just get bigger" is the most commonly seen way to make levels mean nothing, "you can have all the capabilities from 1st level on" does the same thing.

[newguydude1]

And I don't support that. :smalltongue:
Although IIRC you need a Portable Hole to take full advantage of it.

While "you can never have new capabilities, your numbers just get bigger" is the most commonly seen way to make levels mean nothing, "you can have all the capabilities from 1st level on" does the same thing.

i think theres a difference between "you can have all the capabilities from 1st level on" and "i am sacrificing literally everything about my character, turning it into a one trick pony, just to get the one thing at 1st level"

[JNAProductions]

i think theres a difference between "you can have all the capabilities from 1st level on" and "i am sacrificing literally everything about my character, turning it into a one trick pony, just to get the one thing at 1st level"

When the capability is "Make literally any 16 HD or less creature as a half HD minion," that's not really much of a sacrifice.

[icefractal]

What sacrifice? Taking the Improved Familiar feat?

And if you're really talking about 1st level, how exactly is being ~8th level while everyone else is 1st level supposed to be legit?

[newguydude1]

What sacrifice? Taking the Improved Familiar feat?

And if you're really talking about 1st level, how exactly is being ~8th level while everyone else is 1st level supposed to be legit?

if you want it at 4th level which is the earliest i can get it you need to blow all your feats, race, and class for it which negatively affects your later levels. if you want it at 7th level yeah theres no sacrifice other than improved familiar.

just like how if you want shadowcraft mage entry at 2nd level you need to blow all your feats, race, and class for it which negatively affects your later levels, where as if you want it at 8th level theres not really any sacrifice.

early access demands sacrifice. and its even more demanding if you dont go wizard but something like bard.



i lost track of the discussion. let me just put it back on track or something.

mirror mephits are intended by wotc to be used by player characters. they are explicitly called out as making alliances with wizards. you got red wizards of thay regularly using them as spies. and they got an entire for player characters section with a spell dedicated to them.

their strength is inline with lesser planar binding, a core spell.

none of the official mirror mephits spam simulacrum just like none of the genies and solars in all of d&d 3.5 spam wishes. wotc is evidently expects nobody to spam any form of sla everyday out of combat to stockpile anything.

yet we got ppl saying no mirror mephits because its a high level character concept. well wotc made them low level character concepts. 7th level to be precise. so its no longer a high level character concept.

this isnt a to trick, this is a wotc intended normal op trick, spamming the simulacrum turns it into to but just because it can be to doesnt mean it is.

so i think dms treating mirror mephits as taboo is wrong. its just as legitimate as planar binding.

its not some unexpected trick people jumped on because lawyerse and rules as written. its not a technicality of anything. its 100% fully intended and given to us by wotc. so its wrong to treat it like its pun-pun when its supposed to be treated like an imp.

just like dragonwrought kobold isnt to just because a specific build can make it to. players shouldnt be shamed out of playing dragonwrought kobolds when wotc 100% fully intends players to play dragonwrought kobolds.

[Xervous]

its not some unexpected trick people jumped on because lawyerse and rules as written. its not a technicality of anything. its 100% fully intended and given to us by wotc. so its wrong to treat it like its pun-pun when its supposed to be treated like an imp.


That’s very similar to the line of reasoning that frowns on the 6+ component multiclass martial while giving the single classed Druid a pass. Intent and backend complexity are meaningless when the actual concern is the game impact. WotC doesn’t have a good track record on intent for much of any edition, don’t bother making any more appeals to incompetent authority.

[Gnaeus]

if
their strength is inline with lesser planar binding, a core spell.

so i think dms treating mirror mephits as taboo is wrong. its just as legitimate as planar binding..

Core is the most unbalanced part of the game.

Unhouseruled Planar binding is probably the most unbalanced thing in core. Certainly for its level.

You have laid out with crystal clarity why no one should expect to use Mirror Mephits. They are balanced only compared with the least balanced thing in the game. That isn’t an endorsement, it’s a condemnation.

In TO, they are good. RAW doesn’t mean it isn’t TO. RAW means it is rules legal. TO means it is rules legal and snaps the game in half. Every TO build, from Pun-Pun on down, is at least arguably rules legal. That’s the point. This is an excellent example. It’s TO at 13, more TO at 7, ludicrous at 4. There are actually quite a few TO things that are less broken than free simulacra (or unrestrained planar binding). Infinite damage crusaders come to mind.

It just isn’t appropriate at the vast, vast majority of tables. That removes it from practical optimization. If your power is so broken that it cannot be used without overwhelming the clerics and druids on your team, let alone the warblades and factotum, let alone the monks and fighters, it probably cannot be used. To put it another way, if this exists in play, no one can reasonably play a character without it. The only things that match it are the other “give me infinite slave” powers. Like planar binding. Like RAW diplomacy. And we don’t generally assume those will fly at a table either.

[newguydude1]

Core is the most unbalanced part of the game.

Unhouseruled Planar binding is probably the most unbalanced thing in core. Certainly for its level.

You have laid out with crystal clarity why no one should expect to use Mirror Mephits. They are balanced only compared with the least balanced thing in the game. That isn’t an endorsement, it’s a condemnation.

In TO, they are good. RAW doesn’t mean it isn’t TO. RAW means it is rules legal. TO means it is rules legal and snaps the game in half. Every TO build, from Pun-Pun on down, is at least arguably rules legal. That’s the point. This is an excellent example. It’s TO at 13, more TO at 7, ludicrous at 4. There are actually quite a few TO things that are less broken than free simulacra (or unrestrained planar binding). Infinite damage crusaders come to mind.

It just isn’t appropriate at the vast, vast majority of tables. That removes it from practical optimization. If your power is so broken that it cannot be used without overwhelming the clerics and druids on your team, let alone the warblades and factotum, let alone the monks and fighters, it probably cannot be used. To put it another way, if this exists in play, no one can reasonably play a character without it. The only things that match it are the other “give me infinite slave” powers. Like planar binding. Like RAW diplomacy. And we don’t generally assume those will fly at a table either.

no they all fly
why dont genies and solars spam their free wish slas like crazy and stockpile a mountain of epic gear?
why dont every player with gate do chain gate wish spam.
why dont everyone buy candles of invocation
why dont every wizard spam planar binding

why dont mirror mephits spam simulacrum

for some reason these creatures dont use their sla to stockpile something. so just have players mimic npcs and not spam their slas to stockpile stuff and all of this is good to go.

just like wotc intended.

but since munchkins cant understand why a mirror mephit wouldnt spam his sla everyday on genie simulacra, you make a few house rules or homebrew stuff that represents these creatures unwillingness to stockpile so you use these things as wotc intends.

[Gnaeus]

no they all fly
why dont genies and solars spam their free wish slas like crazy and stockpile a mountain of epic gear?
why dont every player with gate do chain gate wish spam.
why dont everyone buy candles of invocation
why dont every wizard spam planar binding

why dont mirror mephits spam simulacrum

for some reason these creatures dont use their sla to stockpile something. so just have players mimic npcs and not spam their slas to stockpile stuff and all of this is good to go.

just like wotc intended.

but since munchkins cant understand why a mirror mephit wouldnt spam his sla everyday on genie simulacra, you make a few house rules or homebrew stuff that represents these creatures unwillingness to stockpile so you use these things as wotc intends.

Is there a way to houserule or home brew MM into something reasonable? Totally. You can houserule PB into something reasonable. My group does.

If something needs a huge nerf to be playable, it isn’t playable. And the huge nerfs we apply will all be different. You, me and Nigel won’t all decide on the same houserules. Nigel and I fight like cats and dogs. We do not agree on things we both consider basic assumptions of the game, like appropriate power levels. The nerf that makes it PO in my game probably makes it underpowered in his. A large number of DMs will just look at the abuses and ban hammer it. This makes it pretty pointless for forum builds and discussions. RAW, it’s broken. Amended, it’s different at every table. If you find a houserule that makes it work at your table with the flour bag mooks, tell your DM. Or put it in the homebrew section. It’s like saying “monk is a valid class in my game with these houserules.” Probably so. I believe you. But when Bob Smith on the forum asks for a monk build, he’s not going to have your houserules. So that doesn’t help him much.

And what WOTC intends, yet again, is not very helpful, even if clear. WOTC intended a monk to be a valid character in a party with a Druid. WOTC intended diplomacy, heck I have no idea how they thought the epic diplomacy rules would work. I guess they thought the DCs were a problem.

[gogogome]

no they all fly
why dont genies and solars spam their free wish slas like crazy and stockpile a mountain of epic gear?
why dont every player with gate do chain gate wish spam.
why dont everyone buy candles of invocation
why dont every wizard spam planar binding

Because they don't feel like they need to. Why don't people run everywhere? Because they don't feel like they need to and walking is easier. A solar probably wants to only use Wish on things he can't solve with his own two hands because that's their personality.


Is there a way to houserule or home brew MM into something reasonable? Totally. You can houserule PB into something reasonable. My group does.

Gentleman's agreement is more than enough. I think the OP is arguing that every player should have access to the mirror mephit with the gentleman's agreement.

[Gnaeus]

Gentleman's agreement is more than enough. I think the OP is arguing that every player should have access to the mirror mephit with the gentleman's agreement.

And for some tables it may be. So which gentlemen’s agreement are we discussing. Only one simulacra at a time? Or one per source? No simulacra with CR>APL? If he can get it at 4, and make a single simulacrum only, of a wizard 16/2=8, that’s not going to fly at my table, or I think at most tables. A gentleman’s agreement is just a houserule without the rule. If we can’t agree on the houserule, the agreement isn’t going to help us.

If the gentlemen’s agreement is “don’t break the game” I have no clue as to what that means in play, because what is game breaking will vary.

[Chauncymancer]

Because Mirror Mephits say the quiet part out loud, and in the majority of campaigns it would just result in Simulacrum being banned.


Just a heads up, the phrase "says the quiet part out loud" is going to imply to most people that there's something much more ominous implied in the mirror mephit than just bad game design.

[Psyren]

so wotc 100% intends players to have mirror mephits. so why people treat them as taboo?

Not everything wotc intended players to use is healthy for the game, especially without any restrictions. Simulacrum is often seen as one of those things, and getting it in a game even earlier and more consistently than normal only exacerbates that.


And for some tables it may be. So which gentlemen’s agreement are we discussing. Only one simulacra at a time? Or one per source? No simulacra with CR>APL? If he can get it at 4, and make a single simulacrum only, of a wizard 16/2=8, that’s not going to fly at my table, or I think at most tables. A gentleman’s agreement is just a houserule without the rule. If we can’t agree on the houserule, the agreement isn’t going to help us.

If the gentlemen’s agreement is “don’t break the game” I have no clue as to what that means in play, because what is game breaking will vary.

^ This.

[gogogome]

And for some tables it may be. So which gentlemen’s agreement are we discussing. Only one simulacra at a time? Or one per source? No simulacra with CR>APL? If he can get it at 4, and make a single simulacrum only, of a wizard 16/2=8, that’s not going to fly at my table, or I think at most tables. A gentleman’s agreement is just a houserule without the rule. If we can’t agree on the houserule, the agreement isn’t going to help us.

If the gentlemen’s agreement is “don’t break the game” I have no clue as to what that means in play, because what is game breaking will vary.

Gentleman's agreement is not about house rules or limits. Gentleman's agreement is letting the player do whatever he wants that's legal, but since he doesn't want to break the game, whatever he does won't.

A player might make 40 simulacra and turn the thing into a horde. As long as the resulting horde is in line with the rest of the party, agreement is not breached.
A player might make a creature whose cr that's much higher than the APL. Maybe the creature is over CRed , maybe the party is just ridiculously powerful. Doesn't matter though, agreement is not breached.

No limits other than RAW. The whole point of the Gentleman's agreement is to avoid having to balance it yourself with house rules.

[gijoemike]

We aren't talking about infinitely spamming simulacrum. That is obviously broken tippyverse nonsense. We aren't talking about the mirror mephit using it on their own a dozen times a month either. That too is insane. We are discussing a wizard using a class feature's special ability on a sane basis.

With that said have the MM use its ability once a week and obtaining 2 copies of the wizard, and 2 party clerics over the course of a month. All level 8. Takings this as core only no optimization. That is a haste, invisibility purge, prayer, and circle of protection for FREE during the first round of combat. The MM and real wizard have used no action to do anything. They can go all TO as possible. All 4 are battlefield wide. That is a massive power shift above when MM can be taken. They are small helpful bumps 1 or 2 points to hit, possibly 2 points to defense, an extra attack, protection from charms, disadvantage to enemy rogues(slightly). None of those spells are game changing. Even adding them all together isn't a large buff. It is well within RAW.

The trick here is its completely resource free and action economy free. And that is bovine feces. I wouldn't allow this at my table. And this is a rather benign use of MM. This power isn't being used anywhere close to what it COULD be used as. GMs slap this down for the reason it can get way out of control very quickly and very easily. It is all about abuse of action economy for no buy-in, not throwing the biggest best spell/action possible.


Exact same thing goes for Planer Binding/Planer Ally. At least there is some resource cost with those.

[gogogome]

We aren't talking about infinitely spamming simulacrum. That is obviously broken tippyverse nonsense. We aren't talking about the mirror mephit using it on their own a dozen times a month either. That too is insane. We are discussing a wizard using a class feature's special ability on a sane basis.

With that said have the MM use its ability once a week and obtaining 2 copies of the wizard, and 2 party clerics over the course of a month. All level 8. Takings this as core only no optimization. That is a haste, invisibility purge, prayer, and circle of protection for FREE during the first round of combat. The MM and real wizard have used no action to do anything. They can go all TO as possible. All 4 are battlefield wide. That is a massive power shift above when MM can be taken. They are small helpful bumps 1 or 2 points to hit, possibly 2 points to defense, an extra attack, protection from charms, disadvantage to enemy rogues(slightly). None of those spells are game changing. Even adding them all together isn't a large buff. It is well within RAW.

The trick here is its completely resource free and action economy free. And that is bovine feces. I wouldn't allow this at my table. And this is a rather benign use of MM. This power isn't being used anywhere close to what it COULD be used as. GMs slap this down for the reason it can get way out of control very quickly and very easily. It is all about abuse of action economy for no buy-in, not throwing the biggest best spell/action possible.

I wouldn't call breaking the action economy wide open "sane". If a player did that at my table he broke the Gentleman's Agreement.

My definition of sane is: get the strongest party member on your party, and compare your strength and all your simulacrum combined with him. If you're a lot stronger you're insane. If you're on par you're sane. Breaking action economy wide open is insane. Creating an army of simulacra to slowly replace the BBEG's army one by one until the BBEG has no minions left and he is unaware of this fact, this is sane. Because it's a roleplay thing and Frostburn has a wizard who did the exact same thing.


Exact same thing goes for Planer Binding/Planer Ally. At least there is some resource cost with those.

Planar Binding has no resource cost. In fact a Planar Binder is gonna churn out even more powerful monsters than the MM can ever produce at an even more rapid pace. Permanent duration too. Just cast a geas or a suggestion spell on the bound outsider to accept the next deal no matter what, and he will agree to an eternity of slavery, which can never be dispelled because Planar Binding's contract is undefeatable.

[Gnaeus]

My definition of sane is: get the strongest party member on your party, and compare your strength and all your simulacrum combined with him. If you're a lot stronger you're insane. If you're on par you're sane. Breaking action economy wide open is insane. Creating an army of simulacra to slowly replace the BBEG's army one by one until the BBEG has no minions left and he is unaware of this fact, this is sane. Because it's a roleplay thing and Frostburn has a wizard who did the exact same thing

So, when we examine this in context of the web.

You say Here’s my build. Please evaluate. I’m going to assume that you can’t use MM at all.

Why? You are probably starting from a wizard. Assuming something like equivalent optimization, you are probably already pretty on par with the strongest member of your party by about 5th level. It’s not like monks and swashbucklers are getting mirror mephits. And given that you are probably already pretty high op, since you even know what a mirror Mephit is, your opti-fu is almost certainly at least equal to most teammates. I mean if you start the gentleman’s agreement with (to use mirror Mephit you must be playing an adept) you might be talking.

Creating an army of minions to slowly replace the BBEGs army is completely insane. Frostburn did it means nothing, because that’s an NPC not a player in a group. It’s a role play thing is also not an argument. It’s an army. Most of the powers that separate T1s from T3s are about outside combat use. Is the agreement that your infinite army will never do anything at all? They can work as laborers generating arbitrary money. They can conquer territory. Build castles. Act as spies. I see no conceivable use of you replacing the BBEGs army that wouldn’t have me screaming at the DM if I were a high op cleric or Druid. It’s better than Animate Dead by an arbitrary amount.

[Psyren]

Creating an army of simulacra to slowly replace the BBEG's army one by one until the BBEG has no minions left and he is unaware of this fact, this is sane. Because it's a roleplay thing and Frostburn has a wizard who did the exact same thing.


"An NPC with class levels did it therefore players at any table should be allowed to do it" is an inherently flawed position to start with, and that's before you then layer on the added facts that Delzomen is (a) a villain and (b) spent years and large sums of wealth experimenting with and modifying the spell to create a custom version (or versions!) for his personal use. Expecting just any PC spellcaster to be allowed to follow in his footsteps is unreasonable.

[Gnaeus]

And bear in mind, that when we are talking about gentleman’s agreements, that OP has described what he thinks is a legit use of MM.
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?623839-proofread-my-carry-combo-for-legality

You start off by assuming that you can find monsters with large HD advancement, presumably with summon spell components or the like. This way, by taking an 8HD monster with 8HD of advancement, you get the full 8HD monster.

What follows is a chain of increasingly powerful simulacra creating increasingly powerful scrolls for free to get increasingly powerful monsters. Using Mephit’s simulacrum SLA to provide the spell for the scroll and the Simulacra CL to boost it above what the MM could do alone. With phrases like dark chaos shuffle and consumptive field thrown in. Resulting in an advanced solar slave at like 5th level to carry the caster to epic. The point isn’t to make a copy of Otis the retired 8th level fighter when he’s drinking beer at the pub. It is entirely about finding the most broken things to copy in conjunction with other high op tricks. And it certainly isn’t anything WOTC intended.

[newguydude1]

Why? You are probably starting from a wizard. Assuming something like equivalent optimization, you are probably already pretty on par with the strongest member of your party by about 5th level. It’s not like monks and swashbucklers are getting mirror mephits. And given that you are probably already pretty high op, since you even know what a mirror Mephit is, your opti-fu is almost certainly at least equal to most teammates. I mean if you start the gentleman’s agreement with (to use mirror Mephit you must be playing an adept) you might be talking.

i play with uberchargers and dmm persistent clerics. the only way i outshine them with mirror mephits is by pulling some additional trick. cause once your at high levels an arbitrary large number of 8hd creatures isnt gonna do anything. mm5 has a monster called madcrafter of thoon and its description directly says dont use this on higher level party members because the spawn it makes is worthless against the higher level pcs.


"An NPC with class levels did it therefore players at any table should be allowed to do it" is an inherently flawed position to start with, and that's before you then layer on the added facts that Delzomen is (a) a villain and (b) spent years and large sums of wealth experimenting with and modifying the spell to create a custom version (or versions!) for his personal use. Expecting just any PC spellcaster to be allowed to follow in his footsteps is unreasonable.

why cant i be a simulacrum master. why only npcs get to specialize in simulacrum.


And bear in mind, that when we are talking about gentleman’s agreements, that OP has described what he thinks is a legit use of MM.
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?623839-proofread-my-carry-combo-for-legality

You start off by assuming that you can find monsters with large HD advancement, presumably with summon spell components or the like. This way, by taking an 8HD monster with 8HD of advancement, you get the full 8HD monster.

What follows is a chain of increasingly powerful simulacra creating increasingly powerful scrolls for free to get increasingly powerful monsters. Using Mephit’s simulacrum SLA to provide the spell for the scroll and the Simulacra CL to boost it above what the MM could do alone. With phrases like dark chaos shuffle and consumptive field thrown in. Resulting in an advanced solar slave at like 5th level to carry the caster to epic. The point isn’t to make a copy of Otis the retired 8th level fighter when he’s drinking beer at the pub. It is entirely about finding the most broken things to copy in conjunction with other high op tricks. And it certainly isn’t anything WOTC intended.

1. the trick is capped at cl20. because you need epic scroll crafting to create scrolls higher than cl 20. so no solars. solars is a different trick which uses share spells.
2. the dark chaos shuffle and consumptive field stuff is not related to the trick because i wrote that when i didnt know about the rule that cl21+ scrolls need epic scroll crafting.
3. this trick is mandatory to keep up with my party mates because 8hd simulacra are worthless later on.
4. my dm has the 1 simulacrum limit and cr <= party ecl house rules in place so getting upto 20hd creatures with weeks of downtime doesnt really do anything other than ensure i scale. if this trick i found didnt work then i needed to ditch the mm at later levels.
5. i intentionally didnt talk about this in this thread because this is optimization stuff. im talking about dms whining about mirror mephits before optimization.

[JNAProductions]

5. i intentionally didnt talk about this in this thread because this is optimization stuff. im talking about dms whining about mirror mephits before optimization.

If you think that a DM denying unlimited 8 HD Sims is whining, I think you and I have very different ideas of who's the one whining.

[newguydude1]

If you think that a DM denying unlimited 8 HD Sims is whining, I think you and I have very different ideas of who's the one whining.

i want to use something wotc says i can use out of the box ready to go no shenanigans.


You can have knowledge. This does not mean you automatically get something. We all have knowledge that for better health we should walk 30 minutes a day. How many do that?

We have knowledge about smoking kills. How many still smoke.

We have knowledge that driving fast leads to accidents. Many still drive excessive speeds.

Knowledge without action does not benefit you.

There is a reason these things are not common.

Maybe a level restrictions you need to 7th I think for an unusual familiar. Many wizards get their familiar at first. It should be noted that is your best friend. You do not trade them in like a car. This is why I am so adamant that unless a one shot pass fail. All games start at level 1 so that you must make these choices for prestige classes and take the handicap to qualify.

this guy talks about smoking, driving fast, something about how knowledge doesnt do whatever, all so he can say no.

im not saying denthor is whining. he is sharing his opinion and im glad he spent the time and effort to share his opinion so we can have this discussion. i am not flaming him.

but im not the one whining either.

[Gnaeus]

i play with uberchargers and dmm persistent clerics. the only way i outshine them with mirror mephits is by pulling some additional trick. cause once your at high levels an arbitrary large number of 8hd creatures isnt gonna do anything. mm5 has a monster called madcrafter of thoon and its description directly says dont use this on higher level party members because the spawn it makes is worthless against the higher level pcs .

There is nothing an Uber charger can ever do that equals the smell of this cheese. Uberchargers are generally considered weaker than Mid op equivalent level wizards. Because if all your character can do is a pile of damage, and you are competing with a guy who rewrites reality with his brain, your damage needs to be absurd. You outshone the Uber charger when you wrote wizard on your sheet and took decent core spells.

DMM persist clerics can, at very high levels, because anything any T1 can do any other T1 can copy. But this is laughably more powerful than anything I generally think of as a natural result of DMM persist cleric. Your typical DMM persist cleric is just a better fighter with spells.

The Madcrafter can spit out 2 precise types of creatures. Both pretty standard mooks. It can’t copy any creature to steal their stuff. And more importantly, Madcrafters aren’t for player use. The fact that CR 6 scythers can’t hurt CL14 PCs doesn’t mean that PCs can’t be abusive with an arbitrary amount of CR6 minions.




why cant i be a simulacrum master. why only npcs get to specialize in simulacrum.
.

Because it breaks the game.

[newguydude1]

Because it breaks the game.

then how come malconvokers cant break the game?

[JNAProductions]

then how come malconvokers cant break the game?

Malconvokers, if abusing Planar Binding, are also broken.

[Psyren]

why cant i be a simulacrum master. why only npcs get to specialize in simulacrum.


You're moving the goalpost here. The thread wasn't "why can't I be a simulacrum master"; that is a question only your GM can answer. The question in the thread, rather, was "why do people treat them as taboo?" That is what Gnaeus and I are attempting to help you answer.


then how come malconvokers cant break the game?

This is a non sequitur - summons, even lots of them, have a lot more counters and mitigants than spamming free simulacra.

[Asmotherion]

it always confused me.

mephits have been improved familiars since 3.0.
the mirror mephit section has a for player characters section
they even give you a spell that summons a mirror mephit.
and they make it clear this monster is not a setting specific monster. in fact its the only monster ever described to reside in the plane of mirrors.

so wotc 100% intends players to have mirror mephits. so why people treat them as taboo?

Do you want your players to effectivelly control a coppy of the most powerful thing they cross, starting level 1? It's a simple question that aswers your question on why it is taboo.

If you allow mirror mephits, you might as well allow everything including pun-pun. The balance is already destroyed.

[AvatarVecna]

i want to use something wotc says i can use out of the box ready to go no shenanigans.

Unlimited minionmancy is shenanigans no matter how easy it is to accomplish.

Cheese that requires very little in-universe effort doesn't stop being cheesy by virtue of how easily it's pulled off. Using planar binding to force an efreet to grant your wish for a ring that gives you infinite everything is a 100% legit two-step process. That it unambiguously works and that it takes two rounds total to accomplish doesn't make it "un-cheesy", it makes it more cheesy.

[icefractal]

I have a somewhat different position on NPC/PC parity, but it ends up with a similar conclusion re:MM.
I think that in almost all cases, if an NPC did something then a PC should be able to do that thing as well.
"NPCs change the world, PCs restore/preserve the status quo, mostly by punching" is not a trope I like.
However, it goes both directions - the things that PCs do are also fair game for NPCs.

So that means, if MM is on the table at 4th level, then there are a lot of people in the setting who could have Sim armies, to the extent that it makes consistent worldbuilding difficult and leaves little room for most people to matter.

At mid-high levels? Sure, NPCs or PCs can create an army. People of that levels are rare, and even if they couldn't magically get an army they should have enough influence and power to recruit one or be given command of an existing one. If a class doesn't give any strategic abilities (directly or indirectly) at that point then that's a flaw with that class, not with the ones that do.


Less tangentially, I think this thread has answered why it's "taboo":
* In online discussion, we can't "balance to the table", because there is no table, so we have to consider things as written. And as written, MM is broken AF.
* In the OP's personal game, it sounds like this is allowed, so it's not taboo and there's nothing to answer.
* In some people's games, they're low-op enough that this would never be balanced.
* In some people's games, they may not trust a new player to use "the right amount" of this, and not feel like having to debate it later.
* In some people's games, they prefer "what's allowed is restricted, but feel free to use it to the fullest" to "use anything, but self-nerf to fit the table."

Personally speaking, if I were running a game and someone wanted to have a mech suit as their main feature, I'd just allow homebrew for that rather than kludge it with subjective restrictions on a much more powerful ability.

[tiercel]

All the talk about simulacrum is the main point, but I’d point out two more general points as well:

1) Call me Mr. Crazy, but a “CR 3” creature having access to a 7th level spell effect, in general, seems unreasonable to me. (Never mind a particularly strong example of that spell level AND while ignoring the costs that would seem designed to mitigate its use.)

2) Even if mirror mephits were errataed to completely lose simulacrum, they still kick sand in the faces of other mephits.

• They get SR with super-whoopee spell reflection (!!) baked in. Other mephits don’t get SR.
• MM get at will mirror image and silent image, which is already CRAZY useful. Other mephits get blur 1/hour, gust of wind 1/day, or acid arrow 1/hour, stinking cloud 1/day
• Heck, MM get high Dex compared to even the nimblest of other mephits, and Weapon Finesse to use it, and even 4HD instead of 3HD

Without simulacrum, a mirror mephit seems more like CR 5 than CR 3. As it is, if Improved Familiar gets your character “any mephit” and MM is allowed... it’s close to strictly better than any other mephit, even without its signature game-smasher.

[afroakuma]

Having followed this thread for a few days, I find myself unable to figure out what sort of answer newguydude1 would find conclusive and productive as far as they are concerned. Perhaps a bit of clarity as to what newguydude1 is looking for that would resolve this inquiry would be of help to us.

Now, if the intention is merely to argue that a particular playstyle is correct and others are wrong, that is an altogether different ballgame. If that is the case, it does not appear that any of the principals to the discussion thus far are of a mind to be persuaded away from their personal preferences, and as such it would seem we should agree to disagree and move on.

[newguydude1]

You're moving the goalpost here. The thread wasn't "why can't I be a simulacrum master"; that is a question only your GM can answer. The question in the thread, rather, was "why do people treat them as taboo?" That is what Gnaeus and I are attempting to help you answer.

im not moving goal post. we just derailed. even if you said go ahead be a simulacrum master it is entirely irrelevant to mirror mephits.


This is a non sequitur - summons, even lots of them, have a lot more counters and mitigants than spamming free simulacra.

malconvokers are planar binding masters. your saying only npcs get to be simulacrum masters while everyone gets to be planar binding masters.


Unlimited minionmancy is shenanigans no matter how easy it is to accomplish.

Cheese that requires very little in-universe effort doesn't stop being cheesy by virtue of how easily it's pulled off. Using planar binding to force an efreet to grant your wish for a ring that gives you infinite everything is a 100% legit two-step process. That it unambiguously works and that it takes two rounds total to accomplish doesn't make it "un-cheesy", it makes it more cheesy.

lets try another approach

consumptive field
greater consumptive field
transformation field
gate
planar binding
divine metamagic
embrace the dark chaos
shun the dark chaos

stuff like this, out of the box with no optimization, people whine about how op they are.

does that mean, in a normal optimization game, all of these should be banned? or should all of these be allowed and the potentially gamebreaking combos should be banned?
latter = mirror mephit not taboo
former = im gonna try and convince you your wrong here.

im finding it hard to accept that your not allowed to use everything wotc gives you in a normal op game naked unmodified and unoptimized. everything out of the box should be normal optimization. druid is considered normal optimization despite outclassing the fighter in every way.


I have a somewhat different position on NPC/PC parity, but it ends up with a similar conclusion re:MM.
I think that in almost all cases, if an NPC did something then a PC should be able to do that thing as well.

i agree. its one of the main reasons im in d&d 3.5 and not other video games. if my table was like psyrens where villains get to do all this cool stuff while i cant then id just go play a video game. not worth the book keeping if in the end all i do is the same as in other video games.



Less tangentially, I think this thread has answered why it's "taboo":
* In online discussion, we can't "balance to the table", because there is no table, so we have to consider things as written. And as written, MM is broken AF.
* In the OP's personal game, it sounds like this is allowed, so it's not taboo and there's nothing to answer.
* In some people's games, they're low-op enough that this would never be balanced.
* In some people's games, they may not trust a new player to use "the right amount" of this, and not feel like having to debate it later.
* In some people's games, they prefer "what's allowed is restricted, but feel free to use it to the fullest" to "use anything, but self-nerf to fit the table."

im saying in low-op mirror mephits should be allowed. cause spamming mephit every day to stockpile simulacra is the same as spamming summon elemental reserve feat to get 999999999 strength from greater consumptive field.

[Nifft]

i want to use something wotc says i can use out of the box ready to go no shenanigans.

The box you're showing us contains only shenanigans.

[AvatarVecna]

lets try another approach

consumptive field
greater consumptive field
transformation field
gate
planar binding
divine metamagic
embrace the dark chaos
shun the dark chaos

stuff like this, out of the box with no optimization, people whine about how op they are.

does that mean, in a normal optimization game, all of these should be banned? or should all of these be allowed and the potentially gamebreaking combos should be banned?
latter = mirror mephit not taboo
former = im gonna try and convince you your wrong here.

1) All of those things you mentioned are very problematic in a lower-op game even if you're using them in good faith, so while they maybe shouldn't necessarily be auto-banned, any DM is going to have to be very careful about allowing them. That goes for mirror mephit as well.

2) Cheese is not a yes-no toggle, it's a spectrum of things - some bad, some worse. Even just touching on some of the things you mentioned...

Consumptive Field is (theoretically) infinite Str at lvl 7.

Dark Chaos Shuffle is infinite feats at lvl 15.

Planar Binding is infinite minionmancy at lvl 11.

Mirror Mephit via Improved Familiar is infinite minionmancy at lvl 7.

All of those things are going to break games, even just by accident. Some of them break the game harder, and some of them break the game earlier. Mirror Mephit does both. Any of these things could well be allowed in a game if it's a higher-op game, but even in those areas, a DM is going to have to be careful - and I can tell you from experience both playing and running such games, it gets kinda exhausting dealing with serious shenanigans in a long-term game. Such things are better left where they belong - in theoretical discussions about different paths to ultimate power that this game allows for.

[AvatarVecna]

Also , a couple other points worth considering:

1) The action cost of Summon Elemental and the "1 at a time" limit means you're going to be hard-pressed to get any significant gains via Greater Consumptive Field while its duration is still going. That's not to say you can't get NI Str with it, just that you need a more efficient method of mass-deploying creatures into it - and even most of those are going to have trouble reaching the numbers you're discussing. And even then, infinite Str is less problematic than infinite feats or infinite minionmancy.

2) The argument that it should be allowed and that it was 100% intentional seems to be based on the idea that Improved Familiar allows for "any mephit". The issue is, the feat existed well before the creature did, so it's literally impossible that they were thinking "yeah, Mirror Mephit is acceptable at lvl 7" when they made the feat, because Mirror Mephit literally didn't exist yet.

3) As somebody mentioned upthread, even if you took out the simulacrum ability, Mirror Mephit is still far and away easily the best mephit there is. It's clearly not balanced against the others despite sharing their CR. If you're swearing you're not going to abuse it, and you just really want to have a mirror mephit, a DM would be well within their rights to remove the problematic ability (or abilities, as they case may be) to make it a more balanced choice.

4) The edition is built on the basic idea of "core plus this one book". Source limits are a perfectly reasonable thing that show up in all kinds of things, and happen to get rid of a number of obvious shenanigans. Not all shenanigans, but a good chunk.

TL;DR Houserules are not a violation of your human rights. You are not automatically entitled to everything that exists under the sun in an actual D&D game.

[Gnaeus]

i
lets try another approach

consumptive field
greater consumptive field
transformation field
gate
planar binding
divine metamagic
embrace the dark chaos
shun the dark chaos

stuff like this, out of the box with no optimization, people whine about how op they are.

does that mean, in a normal optimization game, all of these should be banned? or should all of these be allowed and the potentially gamebreaking combos should be banned?
latter = mirror mephit not taboo
former = im gonna try and convince you your wrong here..

My group I would regard as the high end of mid op. Experienced players, who read guides and generate characters well above what I consider default power levels. We still have low tier classes, but they tend to be fairly optimized roles like chargers or chain trippers.

We have allowed 3 things on that list.
We’re good with DMM. But we don’t allow nightstick stacking. So if you want to spend 3 feats to persist 2 spells, it isnt necessarily better than anything else the cleric could do with those feats. It’s ok. We also sometimes rule that metamagic reducers can’t allow you to cast spells that you couldn’t cast from your top level slots without the reduction.

Gate was used by our cleric, exactly once, on level 18, to fight the BBEG and the last few fights before campaign end. Even then it outshined the low tiers, but it was basically one session before we all went to rule kingdoms.

We used planar binding on 2 occasions. First, when the DM suggested that the next part of the adventure was going to be particularly challenging. I first checked with the DM to make sure he was ok with the spell. I encouraged him to check me for overuse. I then checked with the other players to make sure they were ok. I bound 3 creatures, all in line with my alignment and the mission. Essentially all 3 were buffing angels to allow the lower tier players to shine/give them flanking buddies. I let the other players control them in combat so my turns didn’t take too long. Then we finished the hard section and got a new player and I never used it in combat again.

The other time we were in a dimension trapped area and needed to communicate with the outside world, so I chain bound low HD things with teleport until something beat the check to teleport out with a letter. It was basically a higher level Sending.

So, we banned 5, allowed 3, one with nerfs, one in the last session of a game, and one we treated with extreme care. I’m pretty sure we would treat simulacrum the same.

[newguydude1]

Such things are better left where they belong - in theoretical discussions about different paths to ultimate power that this game allows for.

how is something gift wrapped to players by wotc something theoretical? by that logic anything better than a monk should be theoretical. officially gift wrapped to players = players who play the game should be expected to use it.

infinite dcsf feats is from otyugh hole shenanigans and weapon proficiency lawyerese. normal dcsf is practical not theoretical.


2) The argument that it should be allowed and that it was 100% intentional seems to be based on the idea that Improved Familiar allows for "any mephit". The issue is, the feat existed well before the creature did, so it's literally impossible that they were thinking "yeah, Mirror Mephit is acceptable at lvl 7" when they made the feat, because Mirror Mephit literally didn't exist yet.

no its the opposite. because more than one feat allows for mephit familiars way before the mirror mephit is printed, its totally possible that they were thinking "yeah, mm is acceptable at lvl 7". the spell gives mephits to players at level 3 not 7.

its impossible if the mephit was printed before the multiple improved and planar familiar feats. seriously. what you are saying is
printed before the mm: impossible
printed after the mm: impossible
see the flaw in logic? only the latter is true. if the mephit familiar existed before the printing of mm, then its not impossible. its supposed to be expected.

how can you say a monster given to players at 3rd level turned permanent at 7th level is impossible to expect?


4) The edition is built on the basic idea of "core plus this one book". Source limits are a perfectly reasonable thing that show up in all kinds of things, and happen to get rid of a number of obvious shenanigans. Not all shenanigans, but a good chunk.

what? no. god no. thats 5e. your getting mixed up.

Fiendish Codex I: Hordes of the Abyss makes use of the information in the three D&D core rulebooks--Player’s Handbook (PH), Dungeon Master’s Guide (DMG), and Monster Manual (MM). In addition, it includes references to other D&D supplements, including Fiend Folio (FF), Monster Manual II (MM2), Monster Manual III (MM3), Epic Level Handbook, Miniatures Handbook, and a few others. Although possession of any or all of these supplements will enhance your enjoyment of this book, none beyond the core rulebooks are strictly necessary

i think the late hour is getting to you cause your getting logic backwards and mixing up editions

[AvatarVecna]

how is something gift wrapped to players by wotc something theoretical? by that logic anything better than a monk should be theoretical. officially gift wrapped to players = players who play the game should be expected to use it.

I really don't know how to explain to you that WotC aren't perfect beings who were incapable of making a flawed game. They screwed up allowing a lot of things. This is one of those things.


no its the opposite. because more than one feat allows for mephit familiars way before the mirror mephit is printed, its totally possible that they were thinking "yeah, mm is acceptable at lvl 7". the spell gives mephits to players at level 3 not 7.

Getting this at lvl 3 is even worse than getting it at lvl 7.



how can you say a monster given to players at 3rd level turned permanent at 7th level is impossible to expect?

Repeating this: I really don't know how to explain to you that WotC aren't perfect beings who were incapable of making a flawed game. They screwed up allowing a lot of things. This is one of those things.


what? no. god no. thats 5e. your getting mixed up.

It's explicit in 5e, for this exact reason: {Scrubbed} Each supplement released is generally designed on a "core plus this book" assumption, because it's bad game design to assume that the player who purchased Complete Mage also purchased three specific other books. The only books you can count on every player to have are core. That's why the vast majority of PrCs have feat prereqs that pull from only core or the same book they're presented in, even if there's a feat that makes perfect fluff and mechanical sense for that particular class in some other supplement.

Best case scenario, {Scrubbed} anymore than they expected people to abuse genie wishes for literally infinite power, or intended kobolds to be able to take epic feats, or a million other cheesy things.

[AvatarVecna]

{Scrubbed}

[Gnaeus]

how is something gift wrapped to players by wotc something theoretical? by that logic anything better than a monk should be theoretical. officially gift wrapped to players = players who play the game should be expected to use it.

Because, again, the rules were written by a bunch of people with poor system mastery who didn’t pay a lot of attention to how stuff interacted, even when that is obvious.

Again, RAW diplomacy is RAW. It’s clear. Is it more broken with other unrelated stuff? Sure. The Jumplomancer is also legal and more broken because jump is easier to min/max than diplomacy. We could argue about how exactly it interacts with charms. But +40-50 diplo checks are pretty easy to achieve without breaking into the stinky cheese, and used as apparently intended it lets low level PCs turn high level NPCs into fanatical followers with no defense. And the first time your 10th level PC looks at a dungeon the DM carefully designed for your 10th level party and says “Eh. Pass. I’ll just tell Elminster to do it for me” the game is done and the DM is breaking out Arkham Horror. When a power invalidates 90% of the games classes and also any high tier build not predicated on similar extreme cheese, we call that “broken” and assume that any game in which it is allowed without nerfs will stop being D&D as WOTC or we understand the concept in pretty short order.

[gogogome]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Each supplement released is generally designed on a "core plus this book" assumption, because it's bad game design to assume that the player who purchased Complete Mage also purchased three specific other books. The only books you can count on every player to have are core. That's why the vast majority of PrCs have feat prereqs that pull from only core or the same book they're presented in, even if there's a feat that makes perfect fluff and mechanical sense for that particular class in some other supplement.

Best case scenario, {Scrub the post, scrub the quote} anymore than they expected people to abuse genie wishes for literally infinite power, or intended kobolds to be able to take epic feats, or a million other cheesy things.

Is the name calling really necessary?

Btw, Complete Psionic is the last book printed for 3.5

Complete Psionic makes use of the information in the three D&D core rulebooks—Player's Handbook(PH),Dungeon Master's Guide (DMG), and Monster Manual (MM)—as well as Expanded Psionics Handbook (EPH). It doesn't directly reference any other books (aside from a single mention of Fiend Folio), but it draws on the accumulated heritage of D&D supplements published since 2000. Although possession of any or all of these supplements will enhance your enjoyment of this book, they are not strictly necessary.

and it encourages the player to use all of both 3.0 and 3.5. See how it says "since 2000". I don't know what you're trying to do here but don't try to pass 5e off as 3e. The two are very different games.

Also the OP showed that mirror mephits are not, as you put it, "WeLl TeChNiCalLy", because there is nothing to get technical about it. It is unambiguously clear cut and intentional which is the entire basis for the OP's argument.

{Scrubbed}

[Xervous]

The system has a well documented host of dysfunctions and flaws that are best patched over to keep the system in line with its intent of use.

Judging by numerous adventure paths and standalone modules the intended power level for a level 7 (11 even) or lower character clearly excludes infinite army cheese. It has generally been observed through repeat trials performed by thousands upon thousands of groups that most modules are not too far off from what a decent grab bag of characters can hope to contest. To repeat, a generally sampled set of characters put through a generally sampled set of modules produces acceptable results.

Characters may overwhelm a module by a matter of levels, that is to say they could have succeeded at CURRENT LEVEL -N where N is small. However when a single feature can lead to modules being trivialized by characters well below the targeted level range you have a problematic, undesirable feature.

Granted, most high level modules are garbage. However they are typically big number bundles in the garbage. For a system where level is supposed to reflect the relative power of a character, one feature that allows a level 7, or level 3 character to solo a level 13 adventure is simply out of line. Mark that feature for delete and scour it from the repository. Sure, the game mechanics in some twisted or blatant fashion allow for it, but it’s well off from how the game was intended to work.

I’ve seen this brand of argument play out across multiple games. For ARPGs and tabletops there’s only the burden of knowledge that separates those empowered by it from those not, making it basically a cheat code to play on easy mode just to inflate your performance metric. D&D makes no demands of physical dexterity, reaction speeds or split second mind games that have justified other unintended features that expanded gameplay options. In fact concepts that produce massive leaps in potential like mirror mephit pets narrow the field of play. M:TG is a great example of this when one combo or another runs rampant and chokes out a format, having defined a new degree of potency that few other strategies can hope to contest.

The intent is clear enough. WotC printed some dumb stuff and I’d expect most GMs to laugh at the mention of mirror mephits the same as they do about supernatural wishes, lore drake DWKs, or candles of invocation.

[AvatarVecna]

Is the name calling really necessary?

Btw, Complete Psionic is the last book printed for 3.5


and it encourages the player to use all of both 3.0 and 3.5. See how it says "since 2000". I don't know what you're trying to do here but don't try to pass 5e off as 3e. The two are very different games.

Also the OP showed that mirror mephits are not, as you put it, "WeLl TeChNiCalLy", because there is nothing to get technical about it. It is unambiguously clear cut and intentional which is the entire basis for the OP's argument.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

1) The very quote you're holding up to support your argument literally says it was written assuming that you have the core three and the one main psionics book, and not necessarily assuming you have any others - even if having those other books might improve your game.

2) This is the exact "well technically" I was referring to. It's not explicit in 3.5 that a book is only allowed to interact directly with core material, and thinking otherwise doesn't help anybody. But people like you and OP come along and go "well technically, it doesn't say it's illegal to combo books, and that means you have no right to complain if I combine things from different books that neither author nor WotC anticipated". You can't claim it was pure designer intent that things be combo'd in this way if they're in different books, because you can't expect every single author to check every previous book over for cheesy combos, nor can you expect them to religiously keep up with later-released supplements so that they can edit the rules in their own book should a combo accidentally come to be. {Scrubbed}

{Scrubbed} the people who made Improved Familiar looked at the existing mephits, saw they were all mediocre at best, figured they would make an okay Improved Familiar, and wrote "any mephit" to save on page space rather than listing out the explicit mephits that were allowed - because all mephits that existed at that point were allowed. And then later, somebody was writing the Demonweb adventure, and had a cool monster idea, and they based it on a core monster cuz it made sense to them, and they just weren't entirely aware of the mechanical implications this would have on the player side of the screen.

What the OP is arguing is that it was intentional. That WotC wanted players to have access to free Simulacrum at lvl 3, but only if they were the savvy kind of player that hunts for combos across all the books - a reward for system mastery, and a punishment for noobs. They published the relevant mechanics years apart so that no ****in casual players had a chance to catch wind of the possibilities of uncapped minionmancy so early in the game, and even made sure to publish one half of it in a module instead of a proper supplement so that fewer people would buy it just by chance. That's designer-intended cheese. And that's silly. We all know it's silly to assume that. Occam's razor is...they just screwed up. Too many cooks in the kitchen across too many years not checking each other's work to make sure the game is balanced. We've got plenty of cheese and dysfunction to support that theory.

{Scrubbed}

[Batcathat]

how is something gift wrapped to players by wotc something theoretical? by that logic anything better than a monk should be theoretical. officially gift wrapped to players = players who play the game should be expected to use it.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. I think anyone who's ever glanced at the rules agree that they allow for a lot of unbalanced, potentially game-breaking nonsense and the fact that a lot of people would rather not have stuff like that in an actual game is the answer to your original question.

But sure, different people draw the lines at different points. Though most base their decision on how much something affects the game, rather than how much WotC "intended" it to work that way.

[icefractal]

It's explicit in 5e, for this exact reason{Scrub the post, scrub the quote} Each supplement released is generally designed on a "core plus this book" assumption, because it's bad game design to assume that the player who purchased Complete Mage also purchased three specific other books. The only books you can count on every player to have are core. That's why the vast majority of PrCs have feat prereqs that pull from only core or the same book they're presented in, even if there's a feat that makes perfect fluff and mechanical sense for that particular class in some other supplement.
{Scrubbed}

Also, I don't agree. IMO you'll always get better results (balance-wise) by judging individual components vs restricting sources. Most stuff is fine when combined, and some books have a lot of broken stuff just by themselves (Serpent Kingdoms says hi).

And furthermore, IMO at least, part of the appeal of a mature system like 3.5 is the bountiful variety of content and the fact that you can combine it in interesting ways. Would I play core-only 3.5 or PF1? Probably not - 5e is easier to find players for, a bit faster, and works fine for that kind of experience.

[JNAProductions]

Rude. Also, I don't agree. IMO you'll always get better results (balance-wise) by judging individual components vs restricting sources. Most stuff is fine when combined, and some books have a lot of broken stuff just by themselves (Serpent Kingdoms says hi).

And furthermore, IMO at least, part of the appeal of a mature system like 3.5 is the bountiful variety of content and the fact that you can combine it in interesting ways. Would I play core-only 3.5 or PF1? Probably not - 5e is easier to find players for, a bit faster, and works fine for that kind of experience.

Notice how AV didn't say "The game is better with Core +1."

They said "The game was designed with only Core +1 in mind."

[icefractal]

That's true, but it brings up another issue I've been thinking about w/r/t this thread in particular - why the hell does it matter what past-WotC intended?

Like, I wouldn't use RAW-is-god in an actual game, but I get why people use it for discussion. - it's a concrete standard they can discuss regardless of the difference in play-style and optimization level between everyone's groups. But when you talk about their intended play-style, that's just what some people - regular people without omniscient knowledge or anything - thought was a good idea over a decade ago. It's worth thinking about, but there's no reason to assume that it's the best play-style - in general or for your group.

Some character is/isn't what WotC would have intended? Ok, interesting historical fact. Now decide whether it's good or bad for your game, which is an entirely orthogonal question.

[JNAProductions]

That's true, but it brings up another issue I've been thinking about w/r/t this thread in particular - why the hell does it matter what past-WotC intended?

Like, I wouldn't use RAW-is-god in an actual game, but I get why people use it for discussion. - it's a concrete standard they can discuss regardless of the difference in play-style and optimization level between everyone's groups. But when you talk about their intended play-style, that's just what some people - regular people without omniscient knowledge or anything - thought was a good idea over a decade ago. It's worth thinking about, but there's no reason to assume that it's the best play-style - in general or for your group.

Some character is/isn't what WotC would have intended? Ok, interesting historical fact. Now decide whether it's good or bad for your game, which is an entirely orthogonal question.

Yes. And at the majority of tables, gaining infinite 8 HD minions at level 7 is not kosher.

[icefractal]

Which is generally my position as well, yes.
I can be against AV's rude and somewhat absolute declaration without thinking MM is a good idea. :smalltongue:

[Doctor Awkward]

Simulacrum takes 12 hours to cast.

Summon Mirror Mephit lasts for 1 round per caster level. If you assume a single round is needed to properly convey the instructions, you would need a caster level of 7,201 in order to get a single simulacrum out of this spell.

How is this game-breaking?

[JNAProductions]

Simulacrum takes 12 hours to cast.

Summon Mirror Mephit lasts for 1 round per caster level. If you assume a single round is needed to properly convey the instructions, you would need a caster level of 7,201 in order to get a single simulacrum out of this spell.

How is this game-breaking?

SLAs are standard actions.

And you can get a Mirror Mephit familiar too.

[gogogome]

Simulacrum takes 12 hours to cast.

Summon Mirror Mephit lasts for 1 round per caster level. If you assume a single round is needed to properly convey the instructions, you would need a caster level of 7,201 in order to get a single simulacrum out of this spell.

How is this game-breaking?

1. Summoned creatures refuse to use SLAs that would cost xp.
2. Even if its refusal can be thwarted with mind control spells, the summoned mirror mephit cannot conjure another creature. It's in the spell description. So even if it could cast its simulacrum sla, it could not create a creature. "Conjure" is not restricted to the conjuration school as Prismatic Sphere, an abjuration spell, is said to be "conjured" in its spell description.
3. SLAs are a standard action. There's been a thread about this relatively recently. From it, the d20srd is wrong, its actually paraphrasing a passage in PHB, which is contradicted by another passage in PHB that says SLAs are a standard action. And then the Rules Compendium makes it very clear that its a standard action.
4. We are talking about mirror mephits as familiars or as planar bound creatures, not the summon. Which the monster description encourages by saying mirror mephits seek alliances with wizards, and that Red Wizards of Thay regularly employ them as spies.

[Doctor Awkward]

SLAs are standard actions.

They are not. (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#spellLikeAbilities)

A spell-like ability takes the same amount of time to complete as the spell that it mimics (usually 1 standard action) unless otherwise stated.

Mirror mephit does not state the casting time of it's simulacrum SLA, thus is uses the casting time from the spell description, per the rules as written.


And you can get a Mirror Mephit familiar too.
Maybe, but at that point you are already house-ruling, so any arguments based in RAW no longer apply. Such a game could simply rule that the piece of the creature being copied is the target of the simulacrum spell, not a material component, and the majority of problems are solved.

[Doctor Awkward]

And then the Rules Compendium makes it very clear that its a standard action.

I was not aware of the text in the Rules Compendium. Given the presence of text that explicitly calls out SLA's with casting times of less than one standard action, treating the lack of text that specifies ones longer casting times as anything other than an editorial oversight is absolute insanity.

It would be no different than arguing that based on the table of Complete Adventurer, the Vigilant PrC gets 20 3rd level spells at level 7.

[JNAProductions]

I was not aware of the text in the Rules Compendium. Given the presence of text that explicitly calls out SLA's with casting times of less than one standard action, treating the lack of text that specifies ones longer casting times as anything other than an editorial oversight is absolute insanity.

It would be no different than arguing that based on the table of Complete Adventurer, the Vigilant PrC gets 20 3rd level spells at level 7.

Which is kinda reinforcing the point that RAW is less important than what's fun.

And rare is the table that would find the minionmancy of a Mirror Mephit fun.

[gogogome]

I was not aware of the text in the Rules Compendium. Given the presence of text that explicitly calls out SLA's with casting times of less than one standard action, treating the lack of text that specifies ones longer casting times as anything other than an editorial oversight is absolute insanity.

It would be no different than arguing that based on the table of Complete Adventurer, the Vigilant PrC gets 20 3rd level spells at level 7.

No it is not. You people like to jump to the "editorial oversight so RAW is busted" way too quickly.

Go check out p.8-9 of Rules Compendium

A special ability takes the indicated action to perform unless the ability’s description says otherwise. A spelllike ability that duplicates a spell with a casting time of less than 1 standard action has the same casting time as the duplicated spell.

It is once again repeated that all abilities are standard action unless they have a casting time less than 1 standard action, or if the ability notes otherwise. It is fully intentional that SLAs be standard actions or lower.

[afroakuma]

That's true, but it brings up another issue I've been thinking about w/r/t this thread in particular - why the hell does it matter what past-WotC intended?

This is largely my question with regards to the intent of this thread, especially given the following.


latter = mirror mephit not taboo
former = im gonna try and convince you your wrong here.

The very existence of this thread seems to suggest that the 'not taboo' scenario has already been conceded, so the purpose is ostensibly to persuade others that they are incorrect about what should or should not be banned... but that raises two more questions.

1) Why? You aren't playing with any of these people and have in fact stressed that you would not want to. If you were, this would still not be the appropriate venue to make the case for balance in-game. Is this intended to be used to convince some third party that a ruling is flawed by having others on this board agree with your position?

2) What is the standard for 'sufficient persuasion' in this scenario? If one person agrees, is that sufficient? Two? Three? Is it required to be a specific person? If so, and that person is firm in their stance, would this thread be resolved?

Clearly the OP is looking for some kind of specific response, I am just trying to figure out what it is. Things have already gotten heated and it does not look like anyone participating has come to the table with the intention of budging from their position, which cannot be forced on them without their willingness to do so.

[Doctor Awkward]

No it is not. You people like to jump to the "editorial oversight so RAW is busted" way too quickly.

Go check out p.8-9 of Rules Compendium


It is once again repeated that all abilities are standard action unless they have a casting time less than 1 standard action, or if the ability notes otherwise. It is fully intentional that SLAs be standard actions or lower.

That's a remarkable accusation coming from someone who apparently found the ruling that they like and then immediately stopped looking into the matter.

The Player's Handbook, the Monster Manual, the Rules Compendium, and the Rules of the Game article by Skip Williams each provide clear and unambiguous stances on the casting time of a Spell-Like Ability that all directly contradict each other. Based on which evidence did you decide your interpretation to be the correct one?

[gogogome]

That's a remarkable accusation coming from someone who apparently found the ruling that they like and then immediately stopped looking into the matter.

The Player's Handbook, the Monster Manual, the Rules Compendium, and the Rules of the Game article by Skip Williams each provide clear and unambiguous stances on the casting time of a Spell-Like Ability that all directly contradict each other. Based on which evidence did you decide your interpretation to be the correct one?

I'm not accusing anything. You jumped to conclusions way too quickly. Its in your own post. I on the other hand is telling you what is said in a relatively recent thread.

Lets look at the sources you mentioned
PHB: It is mentioned in two different sections. One says standard action, the other says spell's casting time.
Rules Compendium: Multiple parts of the book all unanimously says its a standard action unless otherwise noted.
Monster Manual: says it's a standard action.
Rules of the Game Article: says its a standard action.
https://web.archive.org/web/20131130062652/http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040413a

Using a spell-like ability is a standard action that provokes an attack of opportunity. Sometimes using a spell-like ability can be a free action or a full-round action, or it can have an even longer activation time. However, it's a standard action unless the ability description specifically says otherwise. A creature using a spell-like ability can use all the tricks that a spellcaster can use to avoid that nasty attack of opportunity. The creature can take a 5-foot step before using the ability (so as to get out of a threatened area). The creature also can make a Concentration check to use the ability defensively.

You're the one accusing me of being shallow. I will repeat again. All of this has been brought up and debated in a relatively recent thread already. You on the other hand, called it an editorial mistake despite this being consistent across multiple sources, and called anyone who claims this is not an error "insane" without looking into it any deeper.

[Kraynic]

I'm not accusing anything. You jumped to conclusions way too quickly. Its in your own post. I on the other hand is telling you what is said in a relatively recent thread.

Lets look at the sources you mentioned
PHB: It is mentioned in two different sections. One says standard action, the other says spell's casting time.
Rules Compendium: Multiple parts of the book all unanimously says its a standard action unless otherwise noted.
Monster Manual: says it's a standard action.
Rules of the Game Article: says its a standard action.
https://web.archive.org/web/20131130062652/http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040413a


You're the one accusing me of being shallow. I will repeat again. All of this has been brought up and debated in a relatively recent thread already. You on the other hand, called it an editorial mistake despite this being consistent across multiple sources, and called anyone who claims this is not an error "insane" without looking into it any deeper.

I'm not sure that the phrasing of what you are posting is actually contradicting the person you are arguing with or not.

"it's a standard action unless the ability description specifically says otherwise."
Does this mean that the sla in the stat block needs to state a different time cost, or is that really just telling you to look at the ability to see the time cost? If it is the former, then there should be some stat blocks where they specifically call out some abilities have a longer time cost to perform. I'm not real familiar with 3.5, but in scrolling through some 3.5 stat blocks, I'm not seeing any that do. I am seeing abilities that take multiple rounds to multiple minutes to cast if you refer back to the ability itself. If you are actually supposed to look at the ability description, then that simply is agreeing with the SRD text:
"A spell-like ability takes the same amount of time to complete as the spell that it mimics (usually 1 standard action) unless otherwise stated."

It is simply saying the same thing in a different way.

If there aren't any stat blocks that call out an sla as having a longer time cost than 1 standard action, then the ability description you are supposed to be looking at is the actual spell for details on time cost for the sla.

[Doctor Awkward]

Lets look at the sources you mentioned
PHB: It is mentioned in two different sections. One says standard action, the other says spell's casting time.
Rules Compendium: Multiple parts of the book all unanimously says its a standard action unless otherwise noted.
Monster Manual: says it's a standard action.
Rules of the Game Article: says its a standard action.


This is not the case at all. And is exactly what I am talking about.

The PHB says under the combat rules that it is a Spell-Like Ability unless the ability says otherwise. It later gives a broader definition under the Magic rules which says it is the same casting time as the spell, unless the ability specifically says otherwise.

The Monster Manual says that it is always a standard action unless "noted otherwise." This could be read as affirming the Player's Handbook ruling, in that sometimes the thing that "notes otherwise" is the spell description, or it could be contradicting the PHB in that the ability itself must be what notes otherwise.

The Skip Williams article unambiguously says that it is always a standard action unless the ability description indicates otherwise. If this is meant to be a clarification to the Monster Manual text, then both of these are now directly contradicting the PHB by saying that the spell description is irrelevant and only the ability matters.

The Rules Compendium states that it is always a standard action unless noted otherwise, or if the spell description lists a shorter casting time, in which case you use that action instead. This directly contradicts all the prior sources in some way. It ignores the general casting time rule of the PHB, and the always-a-standard-action declaration of the Rules of the Game article.

This is the opposite of "being consistent across multiple sources."
So I'll ask again. How did you determine that your selected interpretation, the one from the Rules Compendium, is the correct one? And further, that it is not an editorial oversight given the rest of the material we are looking at?


If there aren't any stat blocks that call out an sla as having a longer time cost than 1 standard action, then the ability description you are supposed to be looking at is the actual spell for details on time cost for the sla.

Off of the top of my head, the paladin's Call Mount ability is the only one I can think of that specifically states it is a full-round action in the ability description. It's also one of the few SLA's I can think of that doesn't duplicate a spell (excepting warlock invocations of course, but those have their own specific rules in Complete Arcane).

[Gnaeus]

Re SLA discussion. Since we’re talking about a familiar, it really doesn’t change anything here whether it is a round or 12 hours. Or a swift action or 2 days. What is important is that it can make at least a half power duplicate of everything you encounter, and at most an endless army of 8th level casters and any monster with 8HD or less (assuming that one exists with 8HD advancement somewhere in the infinite prime and you can summon any required component as it is free)

[Doctor Despair]

Isn't Rules Compendium considered the primary source for all rules text, basically letting it errata whatever it wants?

[Doctor Awkward]

Re SLA discussion. Since we’re talking about a familiar, it really doesn’t change anything here whether it is a round or 12 hours. Or a swift action or 2 days. What is important is that it can make at least a half power duplicate of everything you encounter, and at most an endless army of 8th level casters and any monster with 8HD or less (assuming that one exists with 8HD advancement somewhere in the infinite prime and you can summon any required component as it is free)

On the contrary, these things change everything.

Campaigns don't take place in a vacuum and characters do not always have the luxury of returning to fully equipped laboratory between every encounter. Nor is it always an option to easily acquire a piece of everything you fight (summoned creatures, for example, vanish completely when they are defeated). Simulacrum is not an infinite resource since you must spend money to heal them. Once their HP hits zero they collapse into nothing.

The difference between a 12 hour casting time and a standard action casting time is massive. As is the material component requirement.

[Gnaeus]

On the contrary, these things change everything.

Campaigns don't take place in a vacuum and characters do not always have the luxury of returning to fully equipped laboratory between every encounter. Nor is it always an option to easily acquire a piece of everything you fight (summoned creatures, for example, vanish completely when they are defeated). Simulacrum is not an infinite resource since you must spend money to heal them. Once their HP hits zero they collapse into nothing.

The difference between a 12 hour casting time and a standard action casting time is massive. As is the material component requirement.

But you don’t have to do it in combat. You spend 2 weeks of downtime and get 14 minions. Or 2 months of downtime and get 60 minions. What you do on adventuring day is pretty much irrelevant to the brokenness.

And again, there is no raw requirement, or even intention from OP, to actually take pieces from things you fight. He casts summon component. Or given his love of RAW, he pulls a piece of young gold dragon out of his spell component pouch because it has no cost.

[Psyren]

This is largely my question with regards to the intent of this thread, especially given the following.



The very existence of this thread seems to suggest that the 'not taboo' scenario has already been conceded, so the purpose is ostensibly to persuade others that they are incorrect about what should or should not be banned... but that raises two more questions.

1) Why? You aren't playing with any of these people and have in fact stressed that you would not want to. If you were, this would still not be the appropriate venue to make the case for balance in-game. Is this intended to be used to convince some third party that a ruling is flawed by having others on this board agree with your position?

2) What is the standard for 'sufficient persuasion' in this scenario? If one person agrees, is that sufficient? Two? Three? Is it required to be a specific person? If so, and that person is firm in their stance, would this thread be resolved?

Clearly the OP is looking for some kind of specific response, I am just trying to figure out what it is. Things have already gotten heated and it does not look like anyone participating has come to the table with the intention of budging from their position, which cannot be forced on them without their willingness to do so.

I mean, I completely agree with you, but I suspect that people are posting here for the same likely reason the thread began in the first place, namely boredom. It's not like 3.5 is chock-full of new things to talk about :smalltongue:

[newguydude1]

Isn't Rules Compendium considered the primary source for all rules text, basically letting it errata whatever it wants?

yes

if the guys wanted slas = spell casting time. it wouldve said this

the spell being cast, however, has a longer casting time than 1 standard action, it takes that long to cast the spell from a wand.)
or
"it takes just as long to cast a sla as the spell its mimicking"

instead it says standard action unless otherwise noted.
rules compendium makes it very clear ability description =/= spell description.
rules compendium overrides all
so discussion over.

but we got people saying its a mistake, not their intent, and then trying to use older sources that say the exact same thing as rules compendium minus the part about shorter casting times as a way to somehow give them justification of kicking rules compendium out and dismiss/ignore it.

open and shut. if you dont like it, whatever, start a new thread.


And again, there is no raw requirement, or even intention from OP, to actually take pieces from things you fight. He casts summon component. Or given his love of RAW, he pulls a piece of young gold dragon out of his spell component pouch because it has no cost.

no. simulacrum has no target. slas dont require material component. i dont even need summon component. and the official mirror mephit encounter has the mirror mephit creating a simulacrum of the pc without getting a piece from him first. and for the record i find spell component pouch immersion breaking so i dont use it. not even for bat guano.

am i supposed to believe that every village has a piece of armor from a 10th level or higher fighter in super ample quantity to the point they never run out no matter how many times i cast the spell?


Because, again, the rules were written by a bunch of people with poor system mastery who didn’t pay a lot of attention to how stuff interacted, even when that is obvious.

Again, RAW diplomacy is RAW. It’s clear. Is it more broken with other unrelated stuff? Sure. The Jumplomancer is also legal and more broken because jump is easier to min/max than diplomacy. We could argue about how exactly it interacts with charms. But +40-50 diplo checks are pretty easy to achieve without breaking into the stinky cheese, and used as apparently intended it lets low level PCs turn high level NPCs into fanatical followers with no defense. And the first time your 10th level PC looks at a dungeon the DM carefully designed for your 10th level party and says “Eh. Pass. I’ll just tell Elminster to do it for me” the game is done and the DM is breaking out Arkham Horror. When a power invalidates 90% of the games classes and also any high tier build not predicated on similar extreme cheese, we call that “broken” and assume that any game in which it is allowed without nerfs will stop being D&D as WOTC or we understand the concept in pretty short order.

of all the dms i played with i never seen one not use diplomacy. after any of my characters give a speech to persuade npcs, they all have you roll diplomacy checks and says it falls on deaf ears or you rouse them based on your check. the whole 1 round helpful attitude change thing never ever comes up in a normal op game.

[Gnaeus]

of all the dms i played with i never seen one not use diplomacy. after any of my characters give a speech to persuade npcs, they all have you roll diplomacy checks and says it falls on deaf ears or you rouse them based on your check. the whole 1 round helpful attitude change thing never ever comes up in a normal op game.

Exactly. Everyone uses diplomacy. But no one uses RAW diplomacy. It’s as common as mirror mephits. They go “this rule as written is stupid” and rewrite to something that makes sense. The Giant has his own article on it.

So if I make a marshal/warlock with a +50 diplomacy for a game im starting next week, we will all agree that’s legal (assuming I can do it legally which I can). But if I then say I plan to build an army of fanatic followers, everyone will tell me things like “don’t do that it’s going to wreck the game” or “no DM will allow that”. And the RAW is crystal clear.

[newguydude1]

Exactly. Everyone uses diplomacy. But no one uses RAW diplomacy. It’s as common as mirror mephits. They go “this rule as written is stupid” and rewrite to something that makes sense. The Giant has his own article on it.

so the point im trying to make is mirror mephits are not "raw diplomacy". and that you should be able to use them like normal diplomacy. just like no one uses "raw planar binding", but only normal planar binding.

but every single person here, including you, is treating using mirror mephits out of the box without any lawyering on the same level as wish loops.

[Gnaeus]

so the point im trying to make is mirror mephits are not "raw diplomacy". and that you should be able to use them like normal diplomacy. just like no one uses "raw planar binding", but only normal planar binding.

but every single person here, including you, is treating using mirror mephits out of the box without any lawyering on the same level as wish loops.

1. There is no NORMAL planar binding. There is RAW planar binding. And there are a million houserules. Assuming normal planar binding is the same as assuming a ban. Normal planar binding in my game starts with giving a hard veto on the power to the DM and every other player. As there is no non broken use of Mirror Mephit, it’s default state is banned. I would never allow it in any game I ran and would probably leave any game that allowed it. And I would immediately insist on RAW diplomacy as a counter if I wasn’t playing a Tier 1 caster.

2. Mirror Mephits out of the box are on the same level as wish loops. No lawyering is required. The clear RAW is 100% as broken as RAW diplomacy or Wish loops. It’s an arbitrarily high level of power with no meaningful cost. As previously pointed out, no dungeon designed for 12 or 13th level characters could survive 1000 8HD casters or unusual monsters, and that’s exactly what MM gives with 3 years of downtime. It’s an endless money machine combined with an unstoppable army combined with infinite crafting. That’s pretty exactly on a level with RAW diplo or wish abuse.

Honestly, your carry build is the most broken thing I have EVER SEEN seriously argued as a thing for a real game as opposed to TO.

One normal response to such broken powers as a gentleman’s agreement is, if the players use them, the DM can use them. So, you get your mirror Mephit, I rewrite the elf necromancer in the next dungeon to have mirror Mephit. He’s 1100 years old. The dungeon therefore contains 365,000 8 HD monsters. You lose.

[newguydude1]

1. There is no NORMAL planar binding. There is RAW planar binding. And there are a million houserules. Assuming normal planar binding is the same as assuming a ban. Normal planar binding in my game starts with giving a hard veto on the power to the DM and every other player. As there is no non broken use of Mirror Mephit, it’s default state is banned. I would never allow it in any game I ran and would probably leave any game that allowed it. And I would immediately insist on RAW diplomacy as a counter if I wasn’t playing a Tier 1 caster.

2. Mirror Mephits out of the box are on the same level as wish loops. No lawyering is required. The clear RAW is 100% as broken as RAW diplomacy or Wish loops. It’s an arbitrarily high level of power with no meaningful cost. As previously pointed out, no dungeon designed for 12 or 13th level characters could survive 1000 8HD casters or unusual monsters, and that’s exactly what MM gives with 3 years of downtime. It’s an endless money machine combined with an unstoppable army combined with infinite crafting. That’s pretty exactly on a level with RAW diplo or wish abuse.

Honestly, your carry build is the most broken thing I have EVER SEEN seriously argued as a thing for a real game as opposed to TO.

One normal response to such broken powers as a gentleman’s agreement is, if the players use them, the DM can use them. So, you get your mirror Mephit, I rewrite the elf necromancer in the next dungeon to have mirror Mephit. He’s 1100 years old. The dungeon therefore contains 365,000 8 HD monsters. You lose.

your getting confused as to whats normal and whats "raw".

normal candle of invocation: i use it as a minor stat buff except in a tpk situation where i call in a savior that can rescue us from death.
nonnormal/optimized candle of invocation: i use it to get an efreeti to give me 3 candles of invocation. 2 of them i use in a fight and the 3rd one always gets another efreeti for 3 more candles of invocation.
to candle of invocation: punpun

normal planar binding: i use it to get a creature to steal an item for me to advance the plot. or i use it to have a creature build something for me. or fetch something for me. or help me fight something for me.
nonnormal/optimized planar binding: cl11, monsters last 11 days, i got 2 6th level spell slots. so im gonna bind 2 monsters everyday for 11 days and once i have 22 monsters ill start going on an adventure.
to planar binding: punpun

normal diplomacy: i invest skills in diplomacy. whenever my dm asks for diplomacy i roll it.
nonnormal/optimized diplomacy: every single npc i ever meet be it in town or on the road i do diplomacy to get him up to helpful. no npc is ever talked to before i roll diplomacy. and if theyre helpful i always make em give me money to help me out.
to diplomacy: i get that silver tongue thing and roll diplomacy in combat and render 100% of encounters obsolete.

normal mirror mephit: simulacrum is not used except once in a while for some reason. probably in combat to get a half hd copy of the strongest guy when we need the extra punch, or for some infiltration stuff.
nonnormal/optimized mirror mephit: every single day i use the simulacrum sla without fail to make some creature
to mirror mephit: every single day i use the simulacrum sla wihtout fail to make an efreeti simulacrum who uses his wishes to make 3 efreeti simulacrums who all use their wishes to make 3 efreeti simulacrums etc. etc.

official mirror mephits, the ones that you encounter in the module, only use simulacrum to impersonate the pc and make trouble in his name, or in direct combat. no stockpiling. so this is a normal mirror mephit. and your saying "365,000 8 HD monsters" is what a normal mirror mephit does and thats why it needs to be banned.

lets get definitions straight. normal mirror mephit = what official mirror mephits do. normal planar binding = what official planar binding wizards do. and all of this is normal op. not "raw diplomacy".

and lets get the "carry build" straight.
1. its not a build. its a combo that only requires scribe scroll and a mirror mephit.
2. its not normal. its not meant to be normal. its meant to keep a 1st level succubus wizard relevant in a 13th level party and continue to be relevant even at 8th level wizard, which is ecl 20. if we use the above categories it is nonnormal/optimized. and thats why im not talking about it in this thread because this thread is about normal mirror mephits, not nonnormal/optimized.
3. it was developed by me for my table which has a few house rules in place which is only 1 simulacrum and cl <= party ecl. so i use the cl20 simulacra to get undead because theyre fun and their hd to cl ratio is horrible.


Rude.

{Scrubbed}


I mean, I completely agree with you, but I suspect that people are posting here for the same likely reason the thread began in the first place, namely boredom. It's not like 3.5 is chock-full of new things to talk about :smalltongue:

psyren got it right. whatever anyone says here it has no impact on the tables i play at. i like talking to some people here. im having a lot of fun talking to some people here. so i keep talking to them.{Scrubbed}

[Gnaeus]

your getting confused as to whats normal and whats "raw".

normal candle of invocation: i use it as a minor stat buff except in a tpk situation where i call in a savior that can rescue us from death.
nonnormal/optimized candle of invocation: i use it to get an efreeti to give me 3 candles of invocation. 2 of them i use in a fight and the 3rd one always gets another efreeti for 3 more candles of invocation.
to candle of invocation: punpun

normal planar binding: i use it to get a creature to steal an item for me to advance the plot. or i use it to have a creature build something for me. or fetch something for me. or help me fight something for me.
nonnormal/optimized planar binding: cl11, monsters last 11 days, i got 2 6th level spell slots. so im gonna bind 2 monsters everyday for 11 days and once i have 22 monsters ill start going on an adventure.
to planar binding: punpun

normal diplomacy: i invest skills in diplomacy. whenever my dm asks for diplomacy i roll it.
nonnormal/optimized diplomacy: every single npc i ever meet be it in town or on the road i do diplomacy to get him up to helpful. no npc is ever talked to before i roll diplomacy. and if theyre helpful i always make em give me money to help me out.
to diplomacy: i get that silver tongue thing and roll diplomacy in combat and render 100% of encounters obsolete.

normal mirror mephit: simulacrum is not used except once in a while for some reason. probably in combat to get a half hd copy of the strongest guy when we need the extra punch, or for some infiltration stuff.
nonnormal/optimized mirror mephit: every single day i use the simulacrum sla without fail to make some creature
to mirror mephit: every single day i use the simulacrum sla wihtout fail to make an efreeti simulacrum who uses his wishes to make 3 efreeti simulacrums who all use their wishes to make 3 efreeti simulacrums etc. etc.

official mirror mephits, the ones that you encounter in the module, only use simulacrum to impersonate the pc and make trouble in his name, or in direct combat. no stockpiling. so this is a normal mirror mephit. and your saying "365,000 8 HD monsters" is what a normal mirror mephit does and thats why it needs to be banned.

lets get definitions straight. normal mirror mephit = what official mirror mephits do. normal planar binding = what official planar binding wizards do. and all of this is normal op. not "raw diplomacy"..

Normal candle of invocation. Not a thing. Normal would mean what would an average table do? It’s not a rules term. So normal candle of invocation is an oxymoron. It’s at the top of every ban list I’ve ever seen. It’s cheaper and better than a scroll of gate, which I wouldn’t expect to be allowed either until mid teen levels.

Normal Planar Binding. Does not exist. Used as you suggest, “normal” outcomes could be: “nope. Steve the fighter says that’s broken” (my game result). Or “you can do it but it WILL expect payment and you can’t bargain it down to nothing” (so, it’s a convenient way to hire a mercenary). Or “OK that works. ..... fast forward 2 days.... roll initiative. The hit squad has come to kill you”. All of those are about equally normal.

Normal Mirror Mephit, best I can tell, is “Oh, you think you can access a 7th level spell, at 5-7th level without any of the costs, without the components, 7200 times faster than a PC can cast it”. So normal would be:
1. No
2. No with a swear word preceding
3. A mental box checked in the DMs mind that your understanding of game balance is severely flawed and he needs to review your character sheet regularly and regard future requests with extreme suspicion.

[newguydude1]

Normal candle of invocation. Not a thing. Normal would mean what would an average table do? It’s not a rules term. So normal candle of invocation is an oxymoron. It’s at the top of every ban list I’ve ever seen. It’s cheaper and better than a scroll of gate, which I wouldn’t expect to be allowed either until mid teen levels.

Normal Planar Binding. Does not exist. Used as you suggest, “normal” outcomes could be: “nope. Steve the fighter says that’s broken” (my game result). Or “you can do it but it WILL expect payment and you can’t bargain it down to nothing” (so, it’s a convenient way to hire a mercenary). Or “OK that works. ..... fast forward 2 days.... roll initiative. The hit squad has come to kill you”. All of those are about equally normal.

Normal Mirror Mephit, best I can tell, is “Oh, you think you can access a 7th level spell, at 5-7th level without any of the costs, without the components, 7200 times faster than a PC can cast it”. So normal would be:
1. No
2. No with a swear word preceding
3. A mental box checked in the DMs mind that your understanding of game balance is severely flawed and he needs to review your character sheet regularly and regard future requests with extreme suspicion.

then how come the mirror mephits in the expedition of the demon web pits dont have 99999999 simulacra armies?

[JNAProductions]

then how come the mirror mephits in the expedition of the demon web pits dont have 99999999 simulacra armies?

Because WotC was really, REALLY bad at their own game.

Now they're better. Still bad, but not double really bad.

[icefractal]

The "reasonable" use of Planar Binding is hard to define, because WotC has put out of a lot of contradictory things on what it's intended purpose even is:
* To bargain carefully with an entity much more powerful than you? Well it fails at this, thanks to the HD limit.
* As a fast way to hire extradimensional mercenaries? Well just compare it to ... oh, right, most campaigns don't use any mercenaries, but it's not like they're banned either. Theoretically, one could just go to Waterdeep and hire a pretty damn good assassin for the (suggested) cost of Planar Binding, but it doesn't tend to happen in practice, and while there's a price structure in Complete Warrior IDK that it's at all balanced.
* As a longer-lasting summon that's kind of a pain in the ass to do, but more versatile? I think this can be balanced, it seems very reasonable to bind an imp to spy on people or whatnot, even if you force them into it without pay. A dozen imps? Well, maybe, it depends. A thousand imps? Probably not, or at least it should take significant resources.

Maybe the best place to start would be a general Mercenary system that set out what kind of help is reasonable to recruit at a given level, and at what cost. Which would be useful for non-magical recruitment as well.



Normal Planar Binding. Does not exist. Used as you suggest, “normal” outcomes could be: “nope. Steve the fighter says that’s broken” (my game result).
Now I'm curious how far this rabbit-hole goes? If I join with a Monk, can I say "Sorry Steve, I'm going to have to veto you taking Power Attack, that's too much damage compared to Flurry of Blows"?

[Gnaeus]

Now I'm curious how far this rabbit-hole goes? If I join with a Monk, can I say "Sorry Steve, I'm going to have to veto you taking Power Attack, that's too much damage compared to Flurry of Blows"?

No. We have discussions about the games most OP things. Because they affect everyone’s game, not just the DM. And on a case by case basis. We ALL agree whether or not to allow Leadership for example, and which uses of leadership are ok and which aren’t. Probably if it shows up on something like a con or PFS ban list, we talk about it like adults rather than assuming that because it is in a book it is good for our game. PB was by universal consent, at a point where the DM warned of a particularly challenging section, with a limited number of core outsiders chosen for the benefit of and run by the skillmonkey and the tank. I kept it as a spell known for the rest of the game, but only ever used it once after that to deliver a letter.

But anyway, by mutual preference, my group tends towards a pretty optimized tier 3. I wouldn’t expect to see monk written on a sheet without the word unchained preceding, and followed by a slash followed by some Path of War class. Minionmancy gets a extra hard look because it not only invalidates low tier characters, it also slows gameplay.

[Raven777]

The "reasonable" use of Planar Binding is hard to define, because WotC has put out of a lot of contradictory things on what it's intended purpose even is:
* To bargain carefully with an entity much more powerful than you? Well it fails at this, thanks to the HD limit.
* As a fast way to hire extradimensional mercenaries? Well just compare it to ... oh, right, most campaigns don't use any mercenaries, but it's not like they're banned either. Theoretically, one could just go to Waterdeep and hire a pretty damn good assassin for the (suggested) cost of Planar Binding, but it doesn't tend to happen in practice, and while there's a price structure in Complete Warrior IDK that it's at all balanced.
* As a longer-lasting summon that's kind of a pain in the ass to do, but more versatile? I think this can be balanced, it seems very reasonable to bind an imp to spy on people or whatnot, even if you force them into it without pay. A dozen imps? Well, maybe, it depends. A thousand imps? Probably not, or at least it should take significant resources.

Maybe the best place to start would be a general Mercenary system that set out what kind of help is reasonable to recruit at a given level, and at what cost. Which would be useful for non-magical recruitment as well.


Now I'm curious how far this rabbit-hole goes? If I join with a Monk, can I say "Sorry Steve, I'm going to have to veto you taking Power Attack, that's too much damage compared to Flurry of Blows"?

Hey, just chiming in because this is a really good illustration of the divide between 3.5/PF and newer content. The older stuff is way better as a fantasy simulator: reality sure is deep, but it ain't balanced. And I suppose the search for balance and limitation of scope in newer content is why more people called out 4e and 5e as being more like games.

That's why I would say in a group that's ready to approach 3.5/PF as what they're best at (letting you go wild with really deep systems with potentially unfair synergies), Mirror Mephits sound perfectly fine. They're a being that exists with the ability to cast Simulacrum. What do you want to do about it, argue with nature? If you're in a group that seeks balanced game rules with the meta-knowledge that rules are made and arbitrary? Probably better left out, along with a thousand other nooks and crannies inherent to 3.5/PF.

So I'd say the acceptance by a group of any mechanic as broken or fair is a function of the group, not the mechanic.

This is valid for Mirror Mephits all the way down to Power Attack. Gnaeus' group above demonstrates the point

[Psyren]

There's a big difference though between "reality is unbalanced, look at Power Attack vs. Flurry of Blows" and "reality is unbalanced, therefore spammable simulacra via Mirror Mephits should be fine at most tables!" I suspect that icefractal realizes this.

[newguydude1]

There's a big difference though between "reality is unbalanced, look at Power Attack vs. Flurry of Blows" and "reality is unbalanced, therefore spammable simulacra via Mirror Mephits should be fine at most tables!" I suspect that icefractal realizes this.

i never said spam. i said use them exactly how wotc used them. but you people keep putting words in my mouth.

[Nifft]

i never said spam. i said use them exactly how wotc used them. but you people keep putting words in my mouth.

The ability is spammable, which is what Psyren said.

He never said you did spam them, he just said you could spam them, which is true.

[newguydude1]

ok last question.

if your the dm and a player wanted to use mirror mephits, would you
a. ban mirror mephits outright
b. allow mirror mephits but put in a restrictions on simulacrum. seems like the most common one is max 1 with cr =< ecl.

[Nifft]

ok last question.

if your the dm and a player wanted to use mirror mephits, would you
a. ban mirror mephits outright
b. allow mirror mephits but put in a restrictions on simulacrum. seems like the most common one is max 1 with cr =< ecl.

The most common restriction is "not for players".

This is also the easiest restriction to balance.

[Calthropstu]

Because it's cheesier than a slice of pizza dipped in nacho cheese wrapped in brie with parmesan sprinkled on top?

[Gnaeus]

My first question as a DM in a game would be: why do you want this? Re leadership, using leadership to get a mount for your mounted build that doesn’t die at the first fireball is a decent use for a feat. Using leadership to fill some missing party role like healer or trapfinder is team related and helps the party advance. Using leadership to get a personal buffbot is not ok. Using leadership to get a crafting cohort who will take all the crafting feats and double your WBL is way broken. (Although again, balance to table. I was in one campaign with 2 players and DM where leadership was free at 3rd level to give us a 4 man party.)

Any of those things can be done better by simulacrum than by leadership, even with your houserules. At the point when you get it and until at least 10th level, simulacrum>cohort. And you could swap them out one a day, with half a dozen simulacra forms like Pokémon ready to be chosen. And the simulacrum, unlike a cohort, is a fanatic who can be trivially replaced on death. And Leadership is also a widely banned/nerfed feat which isn’t generally included in basic CharOp discussions, because every character in the game is vastly better with a Tier 1 support caster as their minion.

I would start by saying that it can’t bypass the normal xp/gold/material component costs normally associated with simulacrum as cast by a human, and the xp cost has to come from the mephit’s master. And you can’t fake the component, it has to come from something you encountered. And it takes 12 hours like the spell. And it can’t provide Simulacrum as a spell for item creation. And only 1 simulacrum of CR no higher than ECL.

[gogogome]

I think its important to note that all the people here calling for the ban on mirror mephit, or in Gnaeus's case, nerf it so hard that it's even worse than the spell counterpart, are people who are vehemently against planar binding in their games as well. These people are obviously playing at a level well below what the game was intended for so take their opinions with a grain of salt.

Planar Binding has been repeatedly encouraged by WotC across multiple splat books for players to use to grab a long duration minion. Every time a summoner archetype is mentioned Planar Binding is always included. Planar Binding is also impossible to remove from the setting as it is the main way of interacting with Fiends. There are two entire splat books dedicated to this. Both fiendish codices give Planar Binding as domain spells. There's also multiple PrCs dedicated to Planar Binding. Malconvoker has been mentioned. Demonologist and Nar Demonbinder are two others. So anyone who brings the banhammer to Planar Binding is not someone who is playing at a level WotC expects you to.

As mentioned earlier, Planar Binding does have potential for abuse, but so does literally everything in this game. So removing such an ingrained interwoven spell that quite a few splat books are designed around because your balance point is a monk... well, to each his own, but this is far from normal.

I do have the have the 1 minion limit house rule in my games because I do have some real munchkins at my table, but if they weren't at my table I would probably remove that limit because before they joined the table, the worst I saw from Planar Binding was a guy binding a Ravid for a gargantuan animated object and a Rejkar to repair said object after each fight. He had no interest in binding more than these two and I don't see how someone wanting to use mirror mephits like planar binding would be any different.

So regarding your latest question, I'd allow the mirror mephit with no house rules at my table until you start abusing it. Then I'd reign you in to the level of the rest of the party, but if you do that on your own (a.k.a. gentleman's agreement) then I don't see what all the drama in this thread is about.


We have allowed 3 things on that list.
Someone banning even spell compendium spells... to each his own but I think you're better off playing E6 or 5e. You ban Dweomerkeeper from your games as well right? Even though it is an iconic FR PrC ported over to be setting neutral?


My first question as a DM in a game would be: why do you want this? Re leadership, using leadership to get a mount for your mounted build that doesn’t die at the first fireball is a decent use for a feat. Using leadership to fill some missing party role like healer or trapfinder is team related and helps the party advance. Using leadership to get a personal buffbot is not ok. Using leadership to get a crafting cohort who will take all the crafting feats and double your WBL is way broken. (Although again, balance to table. I was in one campaign with 2 players and DM where leadership was free at 3rd level to give us a 4 man party.)

Any of those things can be done better by simulacrum than by leadership, even with your houserules. At the point when you get it and until at least 10th level, simulacrum>cohort. And you could swap them out one a day, with half a dozen simulacra forms like Pokémon ready to be chosen. And the simulacrum, unlike a cohort, is a fanatic who can be trivially replaced on death. And Leadership is also a widely banned/nerfed feat which isn’t generally included in basic CharOp discussions, because every character in the game is vastly better with a Tier 1 support caster as their minion.

Leadership is not banned from CharOp discussions because it's "broken". Its banned because wizard is literally better than everything so its pointless to talk about the main class because your cohort will outperform you. So the discussion is no longer about the main class, it becomes a discussion about Wizards.

Leadership lets you play two characters. Whoop dee doo. People play in parties, as in they only control one character out of 5 or 6. So why would they have a problem with playing a party with one more party member? If it doesn't end up slowing down combat then no one gives a ****. I certainly wouldn't.

[newguydude1]

I think its important to note that all the people here calling for the ban on mirror mephit, or in Gnaeus's case, nerf it so hard that it's even worse than the spell counterpart, are people who are vehemently against planar binding in their games as well. These people are obviously playing at a level well below what the game was intended for so take their opinions with a grain of salt.

i havent thought about that.

some people have said early on in the thread that they dont give a damn about planar binding or using mirror mephits to mimic planar binding with the cr and minion count restriction.
some people have said planar binding is one of the most broken things in this game and comparing mm to that is proof that its broken.

so there clearly is a correlation here. pb people and no pb people. i am only interested in the opinions of pb people but they have been silent since like the first page or two so... i guess i should just let the thread die instead of trying to talk to no pb people about mm. cause if you bring the banhammer on pb, then wtf am i doing talking about mms with you?

i agree with what you said. about how pb's potential for abuse shouldnt stop players from using it. but when i raise the same point with mm and said using mm just like wotc does is normal op, i get berated with "wotc is terrible at their own game" who then follow up with "malconvoker is broken too because of pb" and then they just dont address my point and just keep repeating these two things over and over and we get into a vicious circle of me trying to talk about mm and normal op only for it to be deflected to wotc is terrible at their own game.

whatever, i think i got enough from this thread.

thanks everyone.

[icefractal]

I think its important to note that all the people here calling for the ban on mirror mephit, or in Gnaeus's case, nerf it so hard that it's even worse than the spell counterpart, are people who are vehemently against planar binding in their games as well. These people are obviously playing at a level well below what the game was intended for so take their opinions with a grain of salt.Lol, rather a mischaracterization there.

Honestly, the reason I'm against easy infinite loops is because I like the high-op theorycrafting. **** like building an entire interplanar organization by creative use of spells is my jam! And easy access to NI loops flattens that to meaningless. If any single caster can bootstrap their way to unlimited resources at 4th level, then:
1) There's no difference between "a single 4th level mage" and "an organization with dozens of 20th level characters in it".
2) You can't even resolve in a very back-of-the-napkin way what conflict between people or organizations would look like, because they both have arbitrarily large armies.
3) Infinite-access people (meaning anyone at L4+, I guess) don't really care about the rest of the world. They don't need to conquer anything or convince anybody, they can operate as well or better by sitting in an empty room and creating anything they need.

And that's not very interesting for world-building.


For Planar Binding specifically, it's ultimately no different than traveling around and casting long duration mind-control on people. So while (like the mind control) mass usage by a PC may be undesirable for practical OOC reasons (desire of other players not to be relegated to 5% of the spotlight), it doesn't cause any internal consistency issue.

[JNAProductions]

I think its important to note that all the people here calling for the ban on mirror mephit, or in Gnaeus's case, nerf it so hard that it's even worse than the spell counterpart, are people who are vehemently against planar binding in their games as well. These people are obviously playing at a level well below what the game was intended for so take their opinions with a grain of salt.

Which is more likely?

That WotC expected infinite loops, excessive minionmancy, and all sorts of other shenanigans.

...or...

That WotC didn't realize how borked something like Planar Binding could be.

Consider, if you will, what their example PCs are like, when you think about the answer.

[afroakuma]

i am only interested in the opinions of pb people

If you are only interested in the opinions of a select group, then that should be part of your original post.


Consider, if you will, what their example PCs are like, when you think about the answer.

I think you will find that such consideration requires that lines not have been drawn at the outset which will not be crossed. OP was not seeking to be persuaded away from their viewpoint, as is clear from the above quote. Rather, they were looking for concurrence. Similarly, the poster to whom you were responding has made their position on how they believe the game should be played quite clear.

[Nifft]

As an aside, I love Planar Binding, and I allow it in every game.

But I don't allow the players to choose from every monster book, and I do add new campaign-specific summons, and when you summon something you don't get the vanilla book version of it -- often what you get will have extra class levels, unique equipment, and/or a template. It will have a name and a personality, too.

If the creature has a special power which it is flavor-wise supposed to use for the purpose of tempting you to the dark side, then you can't get access to that special power without some major moral concessions (e.g. glabrezu wish ability).

And if you summon something smart enough to have an agenda or a position of power in an extraplanar organization, then of course it will have one or both of those things.

[gogogome]

Which is more likely?

That WotC expected infinite loops, excessive minionmancy, and all sorts of other shenanigans.

...or...

That WotC didn't realize how borked something like Planar Binding could be.

Consider, if you will, what their example PCs are like, when you think about the answer.

{Scrubbed}

Does WotC use infinite loops with Planar Binding?
Does WotC use excessive minionmancy with Planar Binding?

Not every fighter PC in the game goes ubercharger.
Not every artificer PC in the game utilizes the Divine Crusader spell list.
Not every sorcerer PC in the game goes mailman.
Not every dragonwrought kobold in the game goes pun-pun

Is not using an abusable feature to its utmost potential such a foreign concept to you? Then why aren't you banning everything above tier 4? Every tier 1-3 class has some form of game breaking shenanigan.

It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that Planar Binding is no different than everything else in the game. Everything in this game is highly abusable, but the abuse only comes from the power gamers. Casual gamers who use wizards/sorcerers/artificers/planar binding/simulacrum/etc. don't even come close to the upper limit of what their class/spell can do. And they all work fine.

newguydude1 has been trying to say that using mirror mephits in the same manner as all these other things should be ok for normal op.

{Scrubbed}

How about you explain to me how "WotC is bad at the game" has anything to do with playing mirror mephits exactly as WotC used them for normal op?

[newguydude1]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Does WotC use infinite loops with Planar Binding?
Does WotC use excessive minionmancy with Planar Binding?

Not every fighter PC in the game goes ubercharger.
Not every artificer PC in the game utilizes the Divine Crusader spell list.
Not every sorcerer PC in the game goes mailman.
Not every dragonwrought kobold in the game goes pun-pun

Is not using an abusable feature to its utmost potential such a foreign concept to you? Then why aren't you banning everything above tier 4? Every tier 1-3 class has some form of game breaking shenanigan.

It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that Planar Binding is no different than everything else in the game. Everything in this game is highly abusable, but the abuse only comes from the power gamers. Casual gamers who use wizards/sorcerers/artificers/planar binding/simulacrum/etc. don't even come close to the upper limit of what their class/spell can do. And they all work fine.

newguydude1 has been trying to say that using mirror mephits in the same manner as all these other things should be ok for normal op. And your response every single time without fail has been:

"WotC sucks at this game"

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

How about you explain to me how "WotC is bad at the game" has anything to do with playing mirror mephits exactly as WotC used them for normal op?

thank you.

as early as post 51 ive been saying using mirror mephits identically to how wotc used mirror mephits is normal op. this is what i wanted to talk about. why or why not using mirror mephits identically to official mirror mephits in expedition to the demonweb pits would or wouldnt be normal op.

but not a single person addressed this. not one.

so i try to bring malconvokers into this as an analogy cause maybe mirror mephits are just too alien to talk about. talk about using planar binding identically to how wotc used it and nothing more for normal op. but that also failed. no one absolutely no one talked about this either.

so whatever ive given up. no one wants to talk about what i wanted to talk about.

{Scrubbed}

If you are only interested in the opinions of a select group, then that should be part of your original post.



I think you will find that such consideration requires that lines not have been drawn at the outset which will not be crossed. OP was not seeking to be persuaded away from their viewpoint, as is clear from the above quote. Rather, they were looking for concurrence. Similarly, the poster to whom you were responding has made their position on how they believe the game should be played quite clear.

{Scrubbed}

whatever im done.

thanks for all the effort everyone but im done here. no one addressing what i want to talk about {Scrubbed} i dont need this. too frustrating.

[afroakuma]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

I am not "ragging on you", I am responding to your own stated desire. You indicate here:


why or why not using mirror mephits identically to official mirror mephits in expedition to the demonweb pits would or wouldnt be normal op.

So my question to you is, do you actually intend to give a fair hearing to people who do not believe that mirror mephits constitute normal optimization? Are you seeking to be persuaded away from your opinion that they are? If not, then I am unclear on why there should be a discussion - the alternative is just a thread to say "this is how I think, who's with me?" Of course, if you are instead looking for arguments in support of your position to present to a third party, that could also be a reasonable role for such a thread to play - but then, the thread to date has not been steered toward such a goal.

If your intent is to collect arguments to make a case to a third party, then I would suggest leading with that, so that interested parties who concur with your position will come forward to offer their assistance. If you are, on the other hand, looking to persuade those holding a contrary viewpoint that they are wrong, then you will invariably come across those who are as unyielding in their position as you would appear to be in your own. Everyone's standard for acceptable optimization differs, after all, and that's not something that any amount of RAW or RAI will adjust.

[GeoffWatson]

WotC planned the game around wizards casting fireball, clerics casting healing, and druids attacking as a wolf. That's how they playtested it. None of the optimization on the forums is what they had in mind.

They obviously didn't think of players controlling mirror mephits.
But as the game collapses into total bull**** if you optimize, where's the fun in that?

[Bohandas]

i finished the quest by passing knowledge the planes. its the only monster in the plane of mirrors so how hard is it to not know about them.

What about the Nerra?

[Gnaeus]

I think its important to note that all the people here calling for the ban on mirror mephit, or in Gnaeus's case, nerf it so hard that it's even worse than the spell counterpart, are people who are vehemently against planar binding in their games as well. These people are obviously playing at a level well below what the game was intended for so take their opinions with a grain of salt.

Planar Binding has been repeatedly encouraged by WotC across multiple splat books for players to use to grab a long duration minion. Every time a summoner archetype is mentioned Planar Binding is always included. Planar Binding is also impossible to remove from the setting as it is the main way of interacting with Fiends. There are two entire splat books dedicated to this. Both fiendish codices give Planar Binding as domain spells. There's also multiple PrCs dedicated to Planar Binding. Malconvoker has been mentioned. Demonologist and Nar Demonbinder are two others. So anyone who brings the banhammer to Planar Binding is not someone who is playing at a level WotC expects you to.

I really appreciate you restating my argument because it makes me feel much better about it.

Here, you have a logical flaw. Gnaeus is playing on a low level because he isn’t playing how WOTC expects you to play. When in fact WOTC specifically put a lot of limits on that spell because of how powerful it is. All I did was put them back. I would argue that I am much, much closer to RAI than you are here. By preventing a 7th level spell from being accessed by a 5th level character without any of the limits that make it only a very good spell at 13th level Im obviously the problem.

But back to the original issue. What makes things broken? We’ve touched on a bunch.
1. It limits game options rather than expanding them. No one who DOESNT take a certain class/feat/race is competitive with anyone who does. Check.
2. It’s an outlier on power levels. That one thing radically changes, like as in doubles or more, the power of otherwise optimized characters. Check
3. It radically alters world building if used in a reasonable manner. Check
4. It causes administrative problems in game. Check
5. Usually a result of the others... it’s so widely banned, generally due to 1-4, that we don’t think it’s a likely assumption that it will be allowed at an average table. Or will be so heavily nerfed that it will be unrecognizable, in a way that is unpredictable to us on a forum.

Now let’s look at a couple of ways I could trivially break a game using the fully nerfed simulacrum...

So, one of the games I’m in allowed Leadership. I suggested that it was a poor choice, but other players cared more than I did so I backed down. But obviously I took it because leadership is so much better than every other comparable feat (other than improved familiar-mirror Mephit, but we play PF so wasn’t an issue). So my cohort is a wizard, obviously. Now, what my group was concerned with re leadership is the delay of play elements from doubling the PCs in every fight. A reasonable concern but not IMO the biggest one. But anyway, they didn’t want combat cohorts.

So the first thing I did when my cohort came on board was to scribe every spell he knew, which were miraculously all different than mine, into my spell book, and all mine into his. Cool. And every level I get twice as many new spells. Then, every morning, he loads me up with a ton of extended buffs. Now that alone is better than any other feat I could take. But my cohort is a crafter. I thought about taking item creation feats for myself but those are ludicrously weak in a party where you can have a minion do them (killing a pretty high op PC concept that I enjoy, btw). Now since my cohort is a non-combatant (although being an optimized wizard he could still outfight most PCs) he has every crafting option in PF. Along with another PCs cohort, he can craft any item in a fraction of the listed time at a discount. And if I decide I don’t want some item any more, or if I want to change the choices on it, we sell it at half price and he remakes it at half price + a discount. So if I decide that I’d rather have a wand of greater Invisibility than a wand of black tentacles, it happens off screen while I adventure and I make money off the trade. So now our entire group is mysteriously a bit over double WBL. Funny how that works. Could I do that with a MM? Trivially. With all the nerfs. If other free crafting exploits were banned I could make one craft until he couldn’t craft anymore, then kill him because he isn’t a person, then make another for free (his nerf) or 1000 xp (my nerf). So to recap, it’s a huge power boost for my character. It limits my reasonable choices in chargen. It redefines RAI game parameters. And I wouldn’t expect to just walk into a game and slap it down at a table.

Ok. How else is nerfed MM broken. Well it opens every broken monster option for easy player use. So we only get one, because gentleman’s agreement. CR limited to average party level. Not an issue. Let’s take a simple core option. A Vampire is CR level +2 but ECL level +8 because it’s abilities are poorly designed for PC use. So at level 7, and I’m assuming all the nerfs here, I could simulacrum a vampire fighter 5. Obviously I could do better than fighter 5, but let’s just say I could only find a hair from a vampire fighter 10. So what can it do? Dominate at will. CL 12. Well that’s pretty busted for a 7th level party. Summon minions. Cool. Spawn. Ouch. So every villager I don’t like becomes a 4hd slave to my slave. Infinite minionmancy is tight. So aside from those things, it’s a better tank than my group’s melee class 7. Fast healing 5, which should work fine despite being a simulacrum. NA+6. DR 10 Silver and magic. 5 bonus feats. Huge skill bonuses. Stat bonuses to every stat but con. Oh, and it’s virtually unkillable. It could solo dungeons. Walk in, gaseous form past encounters it doesn’t like. Enslave every humanoid. Attack every other living creature, inflicting at least a few negative levels. Then when reduced to 0 hp mist outside where you and your group are waiting with its coffin to murder any escapees. Repeat every hour. And that’s the low op version. What cheese is not available here? Template stacking. Unassociated class levels. Incorporeal stuff most monsters can’t fight at all.

Note that with NewGuy’s nerfs, rather than mine, you get both of those and more. You only get 1 isn’t much of a limit when replacement cost and time are 0 and 6 seconds. Downtime day? Craftermon, I choose you! Dungeon exploration? Vampiremon, I choose you! Travel day? Teleport or high speed flight mountmon, I choose you. Water day? Aquamon can talk to fish.

Now imagine 4 PCs with Mirror Mephits. Because there’s no way in Hades that if he has a MM, I’m not playing something that gets an MM. So now our slave party might be 2 of those vampires, a ghost and a medusa. So our wizards sit outside the dungeon drinking beer and smoking while our minions, 3 of which are functionally unkillable and all of whom are instantly replaceable for free, walk around and gather treasure for us. I can’t think of many CR 10 monsters or 10th level adventures that could slow that down. Maybe the DM can just skip the pointless dice rolling and make a list of all the treasure to save time.


These people are obviously playing at a level well below what the game was intended for so take their opinions with a grain of salt.

I feel pretty confident that we are playing at a level well above what the game was intended for. I base that conclusion on the fact that if we play any printed game, and the only changes the DM makes are to max every creatures hp, boost their saves and swap out all their feats and spells and class levels for more optimized ones, we floorstomp boss fights in 2 rounds with little resource expenditure and no risk. And if we fight monsters with CR near our level range (with max hp and better feats) the same thing happens. I wrote some of the class descriptions for the original tier list. I play competitively in convention character optimization challenges like arena fights and optimized dungeon crawls. Now my local group generally does assume that D&D/PF is fundamentally about going into dangerous places with your actual character and defeating threats with your actual character, which I realize means I’m not high op as many forumites understand the term. But to the extent that designers intent is relevant at all (which isn’t much) it seems to me that we are a heck of a lot closer to it than you and NewGuy are.

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: thread closed.