PF - Need A Replacement For 3.x Quintessence

[unseenmage]

There's an idea I have that only works in 3.P right now because it requires sequestering a piece of a Lesser Simulacrum inside a bead of 3.x Quintessence.

So, in order to use the idea in a PF only game I'm looking for PF effects that are as close to 3.x Quintessence as possible.

Temporal Stasis comes to mind but would it work on a piece of a body?
Are there any PF magic items that stop time for their contents?

[Segev]

I think unguent of timelessness should do the trick. It even says it works in once-living matter.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Well... Whitetext

[unseenmage]

I think unguent of timelessness should do the trick. It even says it works in once-living matter.

Hmm. I wonder. Sims disappear immediately upon termination. Even if we assume that takes a single 6 second round the Ungent wouldnt extend that very far so I'm not sure it'll help.

The goal is to suspend the body part so that when the Lesser Simulacrum is slain the Lesser Simulacrum spell can be immediately recast potentially preventing the permanent destruction of the L. Sim.

With the Quintessence option the bead of Quintessence itself would need to be enchanted to recast the spell, probably as an Intwlligent Wondrous Item.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Use PF quintessence on a box that holds what you want frozen inside of it. Since the box is covered in quintessence, everything inside it *should* be stopped as well. You need only scrape the quintessence around the seal away; the rest of it should be fine. Then when you want to seal it back up again, another manifestation or two of quintessence should be enough to reseal it.

[unseenmage]

Use PF quintessence on a box that holds what you want frozen inside of it. Since the box is covered in quintessence, everything inside it *should* be stopped as well. You need only scrape the quintessence around the seal away; the rest of it should be fine. Then when you want to seal it back up again, another manifestation or two of quintessence should be enough to reseal it.

Sorry but I'm looking for a 1st party solution.

[Segev]

Hmm. I wonder. Sims disappear immediately upon termination. Even if we assume that takes a single 6 second round the Ungent wouldnt extend that very far so I'm not sure it'll help.

The goal is to suspend the body part so that when the Lesser Simulacrum is slain the Lesser Simulacrum spell can be immediately recast potentially preventing the permanent destruction of the L. Sim.

With the Quintessence option the bead of Quintessence itself would need to be enchanted to recast the spell, probably as an Intwlligent Wondrous Item.

I'm not sure how Quintessence could be smeared over it before it vanished, then, either.

[unseenmage]

I'm not sure how Quintessence could be smeared over it before it vanished, then, either.

The parts dont disappear until the Sim dies as far as I can tell.

[Segev]

The parts dont disappear until the Sim dies as far as I can tell.

Then use the unguent on the part while the simulacrum is still "alive?"

[unseenmage]

Then use the unguent on the part while the simulacrum is still "alive?"

That's fair.
I keep oscillating between picturing the necessary part as a severed finger or a strand of hair. Either would do I imagine.

[Psyren]

The goal is to suspend the body part so that when the Lesser Simulacrum is slain the Lesser Simulacrum spell can be immediately recast potentially preventing the permanent destruction of the L. Sim.

Am I missing something? PF Simulacrum doesn't use body parts, it uses an ice sculpture and powdered rubies.

[unseenmage]

Am I missing something? PF Simulacrum doesn't use body parts, it uses an ice sculpture and powdered rubies.

i DO always forget that PF removed the one limitation Simulacrum had. My bad. We retained it at our table and I just got used to requiring it in my theorizing.

[Psyren]

As the very existence of this thread proves however, that was never really a limitation. If you're not playing under a DM that is willing to restrict simulacrum's power, a trivial material component certainly won't do the job.

[icefractal]

The material component does answer some questions that the PF version leaves ambiguous. Like, for example, if you make a Simulacrum of "Count Ravensfoot", but:

1) "Count Ravensfoot" is actually a disguise worn by multiple people, none of whom are really named that or look like that.
2) The Count's upper and lower body are two separate creatures (intelligent animated objects, very well crafted).
3) There is a real Count, but you've never met him, you've only met an imposter who looks and acts a little different.
4) The original Count died, was reincarnated, and now looks very different. At about the same time, a Doppelganger assumed the Count's identity and is in fact the one you most recently saw, but you've also seen the old Count.
5) Every time the Count has appeared in public, it was the body of one person being possessed (via Magic Jar) by a second person.

Then what do you get? With the material component the answer is obvious - whoever the finger / hair / whatever came from. Although when you get into cheating around the material component with Wish and such, the problem comes back.

[Segev]

The material component does answer some questions that the PF version leaves ambiguous. Like, for example, if you make a Simulacrum of "Count Ravensfoot", but:

1) "Count Ravensfoot" is actually a disguise worn by multiple people, none of whom are really named that or look like that.
2) The Count's upper and lower body are two separate creatures (intelligent animated objects, very well crafted).
3) There is a real Count, but you've never met him, you've only met an imposter who looks and acts a little different.
4) The original Count died, was reincarnated, and now looks very different. At about the same time, a Doppelganger assumed the Count's identity and is in fact the one you most recently saw, but you've also seen the old Count.
5) Every time the Count has appeared in public, it was the body of one person being possessed (via Magic Jar) by a second person.

Then what do you get? With the material component the answer is obvious - whoever the finger / hair / whatever came from. Although when you get into cheating around the material component with Wish and such, the problem comes back.

As DM, I'd rule that the simulacrum looks like you expect the Count to look, to the limits of your ability to make the Disguise (or Craft; I forget which) check that determines how well it resembles the individual in question. As for powers, without the material component, I'd go with whichever of the impostors you were expecting it to be.

The Pathfinder version of the spell, interestingly, doesn't say it has half the power of the original. It says it "appears to be the same as the original, but it has only half of the real creature’s levels or HD (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD)." I was going to say this was a big change from 3.5's version, but it isn't, and that suggets to me that I, at least, have been treating simulacrum as being more powerful than it is for a long time.

My unintentional house rule made a certain amount of sense with the "chunk of flesh from the original" requirement creating a metaphysical link, but bear with me as I now wax loquatious. I'll spoiler for length, here.

Spoiler: How I thought it worked before

Show

TL;DR: Copy of the creature with the creature's actual powers, halved.

Longer version: I thought it created a semi-perfect replica of the creature, giving it the personality and at least some of the memories of the creature in question, with an appearance that at least marginally resembles the original (better Disguise checks make the resemblence better). The replica isn't a person, but is a philosophical zombie, and can impersonate the original up to and including specific spells known and memories the original possesses, within the limits imposed by having half the levels or HD of the original.

Spoiler: How I think it works now

Show

TL;DR: Generic creature at half HD/power that looks like the subject creature.

Longer version: I think the replica is a generic version of the creature type or class type of the original. Now, when replicating specific characters more defined by class than race, this is still a little sticky - what specific spells does the sorcerer or wizard know? - but I think this is more the purview of the DM to determine. With the 3.5 version, I would still argue for as close as possible in build, because you've got that mystic link.

With the Pathfinder version, I would argue that it's going to be more about the caster's perception, and that the further the caster's perception is from the truth, the more the DM will modify things to make a sort of generic middle ground. So, if Count Ravensblood is actually a halfling and a goblin sitting on each other's shoulders, your human replica will likely have some combination of the abilities you know Count Ravensblood to have demonstrated, but not likely all the class features of either component character nor all the class features you EXPECT him to have based on speculation as to his "true powers."

Similarly, if Count Ravensblood is multiple people in disguises, I expect your replica will look as close to the disguise they mutually assume as you can make it, and he'll have some generally-combination build that is half the HD of at least one of them (maybe the highest-level one) which combines known abilities of "Count Ravensblood." This build may be horribly un-optimal and have his abilities be nerfed to heck and back, but you as the creator can't tell that it's due to being a bad amalgam of different people or just being half the original's HD.

Now, for the 3.5 version, with a chunk of flesh, I'd expect that your replica would be a half-HD build of whichever individual you got the chunk from, and still would look like Count Ravensblood to the extent of your sculpting skills.

[Psyren]

The material component does answer some questions that the PF version leaves ambiguous. Like, for example, if you make a Simulacrum of "Count Ravensfoot", but:

1) "Count Ravensfoot" is actually a disguise worn by multiple people, none of whom are really named that or look like that.
2) The Count's upper and lower body are two separate creatures (intelligent animated objects, very well crafted).
3) There is a real Count, but you've never met him, you've only met an imposter who looks and acts a little different.
4) The original Count died, was reincarnated, and now looks very different. At about the same time, a Doppelganger assumed the Count's identity and is in fact the one you most recently saw, but you've also seen the old Count.
5) Every time the Count has appeared in public, it was the body of one person being possessed (via Magic Jar) by a second person.

Then what do you get? With the material component the answer is obvious - whoever the finger / hair / whatever came from. Although when you get into cheating around the material component with Wish and such, the problem comes back.

You say "ambiguous" as though that is a drawback, where I see it as a feature. Yes, making a sculpture of a target who is (e.g.) magic-jarred into someone else, or who you've never actually seen because they're constantly using impostors, is going to be really difficult - and that's the point. If your character is incapable of sculpting any of the niche scenarios you cooked up above, then your attempt to make a simulacrum of that target is likely to fail; that's completely fine. The fact that this would be more restrictive or complicated than simply obtaining one of their toenails is a desirable outcome to rein in an otherwise extremely powerful spell.

[Segev]

You say "ambiguous" as though that is a drawback, where I see it as a feature. Yes, making a sculpture of a target who is (e.g.) magic-jarred into someone else, or who you've never actually seen because they're constantly using impostors, is going to be really difficult - and that's the point. If your character is incapable of sculpting any of the niche scenarios you cooked up above, then your attempt to make a simulacrum of that target is likely to fail; that's completely fine. The fact that this would be more restrictive or complicated than simply obtaining one of their toenails is a desirable outcome to rein in an otherwise extremely powerful spell.

I think it's important to note that simulacrum is an illusion spell, not a divination. Without the "chunk of flesh" to provide excuse for mystic connection, I think it being illusion means that a simulacrum is much more about what the caster thinks he's making than about what the original really is.

Pathfinder's version, requiring no piece of the original, almost has to be the caster just deciding to make an illusory semi-real creature to his specifications. That it resembles some real being is mostly about the caster's choices to design something. Notably, it should theoretically be possible for a caster to invent a whole person this way.

[Psyren]

I think it's important to note that simulacrum is an illusion spell, not a divination. Without the "chunk of flesh" to provide excuse for mystic connection, I think it being illusion means that a simulacrum is much more about what the caster thinks he's making than about what the original really is.

The material component is "ice sculpture of the target" - not "ice sculpture of what you think the target might be" or "ice sculpture of what the target fooled you into thinking it was." Either you've sculpted the target or you haven't, and extenuating circumstances that make such a sculpture more tricky or difficult are irrelevant.

As I've said before, this spell more than perhaps any other in the game requires a GM to get their hands dirty and actually adjudicate. No message board will come to a uniform consensus on how it works, or what you'll get even if you do successfully manage to cast the spell.

Pathfinder's version, requiring no piece of the original, almost has to be the caster just deciding to make an illusory semi-real creature to his specifications. That it resembles some real being is mostly about the caster's choices to design something. Notably, it should theoretically be possible for a caster to invent a whole person this way.

Even putting the sculpture problem aside, by definition you can't "duplicate" something (or someone) that doesn't already exist. So no, no inventing new people either.

[Segev]

The material component is "ice sculpture of the target" - not "ice sculpture of what you think the target might be" or "ice sculpture of what the target fooled you into thinking it was." Either you've sculpted the target or you haven't, and extenuating circumstances that make such a sculpture more tricky or difficult are irrelevant.

Technically, the "effect" is "one duplicate creature," and there is no "target." The spell's first line is: Simulacrum creates an illusory duplicate of any creature. The duplicate creature is partially real and formed from ice or snow."

As I've said before, this spell more than perhaps any other in the game requires a GM to get their hands dirty and actually adjudicate. No message board will come to a uniform consensus on how it works, or what you'll get even if you do successfully manage to cast the spell.

Agreed.

Even putting the sculpture problem aside, by definition you can't "duplicate" something (or someone) that doesn't already exist. So no, no inventing new people either.

Technically, it doesn't require the creature being duplicated really exist. But it is going to be based on something pre-existing. So you're right, no making duplicates of wholly original things that you made up as part of "duplicating" it. But in theory, you could take anything - even something you'd made up - and make a duplicate of it.

So you could duplicate Count Ravensblood even if he's actually three kobolds in a trench coat. You'd wind up with "Count Ravensblood" as presented by the three kobolds, but he wouldn't have wholly fictitious powers and abilities. He'd have powers and abilities taken from those displayed by the three kobolds. Your "disguise" might actually be better than theirs, making your simulacrum more convincing than they are, even. If Count Ravensblood is a vampire, it could theoretically, instead, make a "duplicate vampire" that looks like Count Ravensblood.

But as you said, this is all going to be very DM dependent.

[Psyren]

Technically, the "effect" is "one duplicate creature," and there is no "target." The spell's first line is: Simulacrum creates an illusory duplicate of any creature. The duplicate creature is partially real and formed from ice or snow."

The material component is "ice sculpture of the target." If there is no target, you don't have that component.

(And before you mention Eschew Materials - that too is binary, either a spell has no costly components and it is eligible to be modified by the feat, or it does and therefore isn't.)

Technically, it doesn't require the creature being duplicated really exist. But it is going to be based on something pre-existing. So you're right, no making duplicates of wholly original things that you made up as part of "duplicating" it. But in theory, you could take anything - even something you'd made up - and make a duplicate of it.

Imagining something / making it up doesn't cause it to exist, unless you are the DM.
I don't agree with the "three kobolds" example at all. Rather, as your sculpture is not of the actual Count Ravensblood, the spell would simply fail.

[icefractal]

The fact that this would be more restrictive or complicated than simply obtaining one of their toenails is a desirable outcome to rein in an otherwise extremely powerful spell.

Interesting you see it that way, I kind of found it to be the opposite. With the 3.5 version, if you don't allow cheating around the material component (and personally, I do house-rule that result-determining components can't be ignored by any means; result-determining meaning like the body sample for Simulacrum or the input materials for Fabricate) then it is at least theoretically possible, as a high-level paranoid person, to deny your foes the ability to make a Simulacrum of you.

In Pathfinder, it probably isn't. Although if you treat the ice sculpture as restrictive (it must resemble the true appearance of someone) rather than descriptive (it indicates who you want to target), then always appearing in sufficient disguise might be enough.

If there isn't a way to prevent it and Simulacra have the original's memories, then nobody can keep a secret from 13+ level foes, which seems off. Limiting the memory factor is general is probably a good idea, but if you limit it too much then Simulacra don't serve their "impersonate the original" purpose very well. Personally I go with "it has all the 'public' knowledge about the target, plus what you personally know about the target". So a Simulacra of a merchant would know how he dresses, where his office is, how he handles deals, what he eats for lunch ... but not the combination to his safe or the knowledge of the secret affair he's having, unless the caster knew those things.

The Pathfinder version also makes it easier to make Simulacra of high-level monsters for general minion purposes, but OTOH it's not like a 13th+ level caster usually had too much trouble getting some hair anyway.

[Segev]

The material component is "ice sculpture of the target." If there is no target, you don't have that component.

(And before you mention Eschew Materials - that too is binary, either a spell has no costly components and it is eligible to be modified by the feat, or it does and therefore isn't.)



Imagining something / making it up doesn't cause it to exist, unless you are the DM.
I don't agree with the "three kobolds" example at all. Rather, as your sculpture is not of the actual Count Ravensblood, the spell would simply fail.

How do you decide if the sculpture is of Count Ravensblood or not?

Let’s assume there is a real Count Ravensblood, but you only know he exists, and you don’t know whether the man you met last week really was him or not. Or maybe you thought it was, but it was actually a half-elf charlatan running a scam.

Third case: you’ve heard of Count Ravensblood, and you think he’s real, but you don’t know for sure. How do you determine if your sculpture is of him or not?

[Psyren]

How do you decide if the sculpture is of Count Ravensblood or not?

You don't; the GM does, most directly via the spell succeeding or failing.

Although if you treat the ice sculpture as restrictive (it must resemble the true appearance of someone) rather than descriptive (it indicates who you want to target), then always appearing in sufficient disguise might be enough.

I view the former as being easier for a GM to control, yes.

I don't think it keys merely off appearance/indication/assumption from the caster's limited POV.

[Segev]

You don't; the GM does, most directly via the spell succeeding or failing.

Yes, but on what basis does the DM make this determination? If I say I'm making a simulacrum of Bob Smith, and just kind of put a lump of snow on the table, does it work or not? I have no idea who Bob Smith is, or if he exists, other than I'm guessing there probably is somebody somewhere named "Bob Smith."

If I say I'm making a simulacrum of Jack Black, and then I make a magnificent Disguise roll to sculpt it to look just like...Lewis Black...because I got the two confused, do I get a simulacrum of Jack Black that looks like Lewis Black? A lump of snow with a failed spell? A simulacrum of Lewis Black? (I picked these two because for several years I did have them mixed up, IRL, based solely on the names and not knowing much about them other than that they're comedians and having seen Lewis Black once and been unimpressed enough that I forgot his first name before I later heard of Jack Black for the first time.)

What if I say I'm making a simulacrum of Severus Snape, and I sculpt one that looks just like Alan Rickman in his Severus costume?

What if I know a Mary Elflass, half-elf beauty, but it turns out that it was really Alice Blackheart in disguise, fooling my best friend whom she seduced? If I make a simulacrum of Mary Elflass, do I get "Mary Elflass," or do I get Alice Blackheart in her Mary Elflass disguise, or do I get a failed spell?


Personally, I think anything that lets you use simulacrum as a divination to tell you whether a specific person exists is a bad choice. It's an illusion spell; it should not be able to create information, only create the illusion of it.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

What if you mistake Mary ElfLASS with Mary ElfASS, which is what I thought you said?

[Psyren]

Yes, but on what basis does the DM make this determination? If I say I'm making a simulacrum of Bob Smith, and just kind of put a lump of snow on the table, does it work or not? I have no idea who Bob Smith is, or if he exists, other than I'm guessing there probably is somebody somewhere named "Bob Smith."
*snip*

That is going to depend on quite a few factors, some of which including whether there is actually a "Bob Smith" to duplicate, whether the player has ever actually seen that person or has been fooled e.g. by your earlier "three kobolds in a trenchcoat" example, their own ability to accurately represent Bob Smith in sculpture etc.

As a rule of thumb, making a simulacrum of a specific individual (especially one who is taking pains to hide their identity) would be very difficult, and it should be. Doing so for almost all the edge cases you are coming up with would be nearly impossible, and it should be. That is my honest answer.

I view Simulacrum as primarily being a tool for getting a complex yet still fairly generic minion, one that is difficult to summon or approximate by other means - not for copying the BBEG or the head spymaster etc.

Personally, I think anything that lets you use simulacrum as a divination to tell you whether a specific person exists is a bad choice. It's an illusion spell; it should not be able to create information, only create the illusion of it.

I don't think the spell simply failing transforms it into a divination. The player might ask why, but beyond communicating the failure you're under no obligation to tell them what went wrong or what steps they need to follow for their scheme to work - they still have to find that out themselves. You might give them a little more to go on with a Knowledge or Spellcraft check, but that still doesn't make it a divination. (More specifically: "it seems you had the wrong material component" doesn't give them a roadmap to making the right one.)

Besides which, as a broader point - I read this argument as like saying conjuration spells shouldn't let you control creatures (as that is the province of enchantment), or abjuration spells shouldn't cause explosions of energy (as that is the province of evocation); the line between schools of magic is not as rigid as you believe.

[Segev]

That is going to depend on quite a few factors, some of which including whether there is actually a "Bob Smith" to duplicate, whether the player has ever actually seen that person or has been fooled e.g. by your earlier "three kobolds in a trenchcoat" example, their own ability to accurately represent Bob Smith in sculpture etc.

As a rule of thumb, making a simulacrum of a specific individual (especially one who is taking pains to hide their identity) would be very difficult, and it should be. Doing so for almost all the edge cases you are coming up with would be nearly impossible, and it should be. That is my honest answer.

I view Simulacrum as primarily being a tool for getting a complex yet still fairly generic minion, one that is difficult to summon or approximate by other means - not for copying the BBEG or the head spymaster etc.

Weirdly, this is in line with where I was going with this: it seems simulacrum - at least the PF version - should very easily make generic versions of monsters and even NPCs. That is, "a wizard" or "a fighter" of Nth level and X race, as examples. Making it be a specific person (or a specific horse, or dragon, or unicorn, etc.) would be the province of both that Disguise check (to get the appearance just right) and of some amount of knowledge of that individual so you can tailor the illusory powers.

There's discussion to be had around "creating a wizard" or even "creating Mordenkainen" with simulacrum: can they make magic items for you? Do they have their spellbook or the ability to scribe spells you don't know? I'm not advocating for or against here (though I'd probably largely rule "no, but with possible discussion"), but just raising the question AS a point of discussion.

I don't think the spell simply failing transforms it into a divination. The player might ask why, but beyond communicating the failure you're under no obligation to tell them what went wrong or what steps they need to follow for their scheme to work - they still have to find that out themselves. You might give them a little more to go on with a Knowledge or Spellcraft check, but that still doesn't make it a divination. (More specifically: "it seems you had the wrong material component" doesn't give them a roadmap to making the right one.)

In this case, no, I think it turns it into divination because there's no listed way simulacrum fails. If it fails because the targeting is invalid, that's significant information, and implies connection to the target that is not necessarily present. (The 3.5 version avoids this issue with the material component requirement, and the variations that get around this typically are powerful enough magic that they can make impossible things anyway.) This differs from...

Besides which, as a broader point - I read this argument as like saying conjuration spells shouldn't let you control creatures (as that is the province of enchantment), or abjuration spells shouldn't cause explosions of energy (as that is the province of evocation); the line between schools of magic is not as rigid as you believe.

...conjuration magic controlling (summoned) creatures by the lack of connection to the subject. A summoned creature is controlled by the conjuration(summoning) spell because the creature is conjured by the spell.

You'll note that I'm not griping about the simulacrum being under the caster's control despite it not being an enchantment spell, nor it having its own independent actions despite it not being a conjuration spell. Nor even the snow transforming into the illusory creature despite it not being transmutation. All of these things are explicable by the nature of the connection of the spell to the subject in question.

Without the 3.5 material component (or much more powerful magic that does things...differently), though, being able to use whether or not you can cast a spell to determine facts about an unconnected being is theme-breaking. Narratives I want to see with simulacrum include making those semi-generic illusory minions as well as making the replacement for the Vizier when you want to infiltrate your agents into the kingdom. Or maybe the vizier is using a simulacrum to replace the king (for evil, or because the king is missing and he's trying to allay panic). Narratives I do not want to see include, "Is Lady Halfelven really a half-elf?" determined by trying to make a simulacrum of her.

Thus, the way I'd probably run PF's version of it would be that you always succeed in making a simulacrum that is of the creature type you think you're making. Whether you get all the powers you expect is largely up to the DM, but likely is informed by a combination of how those powers are achieved and where the "half level/HD" limits kick in to cut them off. If Lady Halfelven is actually a series of actresses (and even a couple elven actors who are very talented), each with different class levels and features, you might think of her as having this broad array of talents! An array that's strictly impossible without being super-epic-level (and yet still also way unoptimal). Your simulacrum will have whatever you think of as the most iconic of these, in the best combination of levels allowed as determined by the DM, by the way I am envisioning it being run.

On the other hand, if Lady Halfelven is a 20th level wizard/rogue/arcane trickster, and the DM knows this, he'll probably just go ahead and use her half-level stat block, unless the caster is seriously seriously wrong about her abilities. (If the caster thinks she's a straight level 20 fighter for some reason, he probably will get a level 10 fighter that looks and acts like he thinks Lady Halfelven does.) If she's really a dwarf who's super good at disguise, but the caster thinks she's a half elf, the simulacrum likely will be a half elf. Anything missing from her build that'd due to dwarfness is just missing, and could be blamed on "half level."

Anyway, I am not saying this is how the RAW works. I am trying to get an idea of where I'm kind-of going with saying it's an Illusion, not Divination.

And I'm agreeing that "generic minion of exotic type" should certainly be doable. You want a 26 HD dragon? You can make a simulacrum of it without having to capture one or anything. It'll have 13 HD (because half the HD) but look like the real thing, and have powers as impacted by being half HD. (Could be very little, or the DM could reasonably apply stats of a much younger dragon with the right number of HD, perhaps leaving size and appearance of the older type.)

I'm just extending this to, if you try to make a specific entity, and you're wrong about things about that entity, your simulacrum will be a generic-but-tilted-to-your-expectations creature/NPC of the appropriate type which will look as much like the entity (or what you think the entity looks like) as your Disguise check can make it.

It's 1 am, so I may be rambling incoherently. Does this at least make sense, in a "I get what you're saying" sense, even if you don't agree with it?

[Psyren]

I don't agree that something like a "generic 10th-level fighter" exists. Those are all individuals (because "10th level fighter" has no monster manual entry) and would need to be sculpted/duplicated as such, with the commensurate effort put into obtaining that individual's likeness for the spell. Whereas something like a generic displacer beast, generic ice devil or generic iron golem demonstrably does, and would therefore be much easier.

As for "duplicating Mordenkainen" - to sculpt him well enough for this to work, you'd essentially need such an accurate representation for this that it's fundamentally little different than acquiring his toenail or hair anyway - something he could potentially detect and react to, in other words. (That's assuming of course that you're playing in Greyhawk in the first place - anywhere else, and he doesn't exist to be duplicated.)

[Segev]

I don't agree that something like a "generic 10th-level fighter" exists. Those are all individuals (because "10th level fighter" has no monster manual entry) and would need to be sculpted/duplicated as such, with the commensurate effort put into obtaining that individual's likeness for the spell. Whereas something like a generic displacer beast, generic ice devil or generic iron golem demonstrably does, and would therefore be much easier.

As for "duplicating Mordenkainen" - to sculpt him well enough for this to work, you'd essentially need such an accurate representation for this that it's fundamentally little different than acquiring his toenail or hair anyway - something he could potentially detect and react to, in other words. (That's assuming of course that you're playing in Greyhawk in the first place - anywhere else, and he doesn't exist to be duplicated.)

Based on what do you conclude that you need anything like an accurate representation of Mordenkainen to make a simulacrum of him? It's tempting to say you need to know what he looks like in order to sculpt him, but since the quality of the sculpture is determined by a Disguise check, and the caster need not have any ranks nor even a positive Cha mod to cast the spell, it's clear that even negative Disguise checks ("I rolled a 1 and have a -4 to Disguise checks due to my 3 Charisma") can work. Nothing in the spell sets a DC on the Disguise check to let it be a simulacrum of the chosen individual. Having the wrong likeness can't be any worse than being just that bad at sculpting!

[Psyren]

The Disguise check is for the appearance of the output - it has nothing to do with the sculpture (the material component).

My point is that only the GM can determine if you've been successful at providing "an ice sculpture of the target." My reading is that if you're trying to duplicate a specific individual, that sculpture needs more detail than one of a generic monster. This one of many aspects of the spell where I fully expect table variation, because "ice sculpture of X" is not clearly defined anywhere.