Results 91 to 120 of 187
Thread: Question about simulacrum
-
2019-05-19, 07:45 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2014
- Location
- Avatar By Astral Seal!
Re: Question about simulacrum
So, ignore the rules you don't like?
Or, maybe, just maybe, the rules aren't written super well, especially in regards to interacting with one another, and you should focus on what's fun for the table instead of trying to stick to RAW 100%.
Related note: There are nine dysfunction threads for 3.5.I have a LOT of Homebrew!
Spoiler: Former AvatarsSpoiler: Avatar (Not In Use) By Linkele
Spoiler: Individual Avatar Pics
-
2019-05-19, 07:46 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2013
Re: Question about simulacrum
By the strictest possible RAW, neither side is correct . The rule is unclear due to this:
Originally Posted by SRDOriginally Posted by Merriam-Webster DictionaryOriginally Posted by Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Listing examples is pointless as in DnD specific rules always trumps the general, such as the hover feat allowing creatures with average maneuverability to hover when the general rule says they cannot. Cosmic Descryer creates a singular specific exception, let alone hundreds, to the general rule. What this proves is that specific exceptions to general rules exist and are valid, not that general rules do not. Hover the feat existing does not mean all flyers are automatically able to hover.
It is important to note that the general rule for advancement only happens on character creation, so players would only be able to use it upon creating a player character (which is literally in the name) and DM's could only use it upon creating a non-player character (again, in the name). Whether or not creating your own creatures would vary from game to game as no rule cleanly defines what is a player character and what is a non-player character beyond their nominal controllers so you would need to work that out with a DM anyways.
Edit:
In a discussion hyper-focused on RAW it is important to consider what RAW says. In an RAI game the 36 HD pit fiend will vary from DM to DM and everyone will have a sensible chuckle at the poorly written rule since they meant humanoid type not humanoid shape. Also note that humans, in our real, meat-space, world, are sometimes born with short tails that are normally removed shortly after birth so tails are very much part of "humanoid shape." I am going to back to original general rule that covers the topic at hand in order to try to lend an objective voice. Quite frankly I could not care less who is right; I have no personal stake in it. I do care about figuring out the most accurate truth of the matter because that is of pure academic interest to me. Consider that this entire debate is predicated on the fact that some designers put out material components for pure fluff and others put them in as real restrictions on spell casting and these to sides never sat down and collated their design ideas so that Eschew Materials wouldn't randomly become a serious issue with a large number of spells.Last edited by ZamielVanWeber; 2019-05-19 at 07:57 PM.
-
2019-05-19, 07:51 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2011
Re: Question about simulacrum
I'm not ignoring the mirror mephit, everything I've said has been in regards to ignoring the material component of simulacrum, which is something they can do, though I will comment on the irony that someone mentioned the scroll of simulacrum from a module requiring a material component despite being a scroll, and was shot down because it was from a module, but then, mirror mephits are also from a module.
My whole point is, while you can ignore the material component, doing so will result in the spell lacking the context to create the desired simulacrum.World of Madius wiki - My personal campaign setting, including my homebrew Optional Gestalt/LA rules.
The new Quick Vestige List
-
2019-05-19, 07:53 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
-
2019-05-19, 08:01 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
Re: Question about simulacrum
How is a dragon a specific example that trumps general? What general thing are dragons trumping? The topic at hand is not whether creatures can be advanced or not. It's whether advanced creatures exist or not. Advanced Dragons exist all the way up to size colossal. So why wouldn't a huge sized pit fiend also exist? What general rule is the dragon entry defying with specific v.s. general? If all dragons of all advanced hd exist then likewise all creatures of all advanced hd should also exist because there is nothing differentiating between a dragon's advancement entry and a pit fiend's advancement entry.
-
2019-05-19, 08:04 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
-
2019-05-19, 08:13 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2014
- Location
- Avatar By Astral Seal!
Re: Question about simulacrum
It has two legs and two arms, as well as a head atop that.
It walks bipedal.
It has the general shape of a humanoid-that's all that rule requires. Not the humanoid type, not humanoid biology, just looks humanoid. And this:
Spoiler: Image
Looks humanoid in shape. They both do. So, if we're treating RAW as the law of the land, no breaking it, absolutely nothing can violate it...
They can't advance by anything other than class levels.I have a LOT of Homebrew!
Spoiler: Former AvatarsSpoiler: Avatar (Not In Use) By Linkele
Spoiler: Individual Avatar Pics
-
2019-05-19, 08:25 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
Re: Question about simulacrum
Is the definition of a humanoid just being bipedal? I thought humanoid shape didn't have wings and a tail or giant feet and giant hands. If an archaeologist found a pit fiend skeleton, would he describe such a skeleton as humanoid? Or more like a dragon?
A squirrel can stand on two hind legs and use its hands for holding acorns. Does that mean squirrels are humanoids too? How about moles?
You are stretching the word humanoid way too far. If you give a picture of a Pit Fiend to a person who never seen one before they won't say it's humanoid. They might for doppelganger or giant but not for Pit Fiend. Lizard with wings is not humanoid.
-
2019-05-19, 08:38 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2011
Re: Question about simulacrum
Material Component
A tiny piece of matter of the same sort of item you plan to create with minor creation.
Minor creation says "I want to create wood, thus I need wood", but simulacrum isn't "I want to duplicate John from down the road, thus I need a piece of john from down the road", it's "I have a piece of john from down the road, thus my simulacrum is john from down the road".Last edited by Crake; 2019-05-19 at 08:40 PM.
World of Madius wiki - My personal campaign setting, including my homebrew Optional Gestalt/LA rules.
The new Quick Vestige List
-
2019-05-19, 08:39 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2014
- Location
- Avatar By Astral Seal!
Re: Question about simulacrum
So Dragonborn with wings and a tail aren't humanoids? But they even have the humanoid type!
If you handed that picture and asked them the question the rule asks, which is "Is this thing shaped like a humanoid?" they're probably say yes.I have a LOT of Homebrew!
Spoiler: Former AvatarsSpoiler: Avatar (Not In Use) By Linkele
Spoiler: Individual Avatar Pics
-
2019-05-19, 08:49 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
Re: Question about simulacrum
What does that have to do with the spell needing a material component as a blue print to know what you are creating? The spell doesn't know what Iron is. It needs the material component to copy. Without Iron DNA how the hell does the spell know how to create Iron?
If you can decide to create iron and supply iron or ignore it, there's no reason why you can't decide to create John and supply a piece of John or ignore it. You have no basis for your claim that simulacrum's material component comes first. Nothing in the spell description references the material component just like how minor creation does not reference the material component. Nowhere does it say for minor creation the decision comes first and for simulacrum the material component comes first. All this is your way of trying to come up with a reason to try to nerf a powerful spell but stopping the same reason from nerfing an average spell.
And an adventure module using a scroll that requires the piece of creature is irrelevant. The question is can you create a simulacrum of a creature without a piece of it? The answer is yes. Mirror Mephit proves it. Whether that simulacrum scroll required an additional material component after creation is completely irrelevant to the fact that a creature accomplished creating simulacra without a piece of the creature. If john can lift a brick while jenny can't, is the brick liftable by a human? The answer is yes because you only need one case to prove that your claim that simulacrum fails without material components is false.
There is no RAW text that says the spell fails without a material component.
Nothing in the simulacrum spell description references the simulacrum material component.
There is no RAW text that says for minor creation the decision comes first yet for simulacrum the material component (which is never referenced) comes first.
There is no RAW text that says you can ignore the material component blue print for minor creation but not for simulacrum.
There are no official examples of creatures failing to cast simulacrum as an SLA without a material component. There is an official example that does the exact opposite.
There is simply nothing, no rule text, no official examples, or even logic, that supports anything that you've said.
Originally Posted by Eschew Materials
Why is this interpretation wrong and why is your interpretation right? What piece of rule text says you're right and that I'm wrong? Why can't you be so good at casting simulacrum that you don't need a piece of john to create john? And how come you say minor creation does not need a blueprint material component while simulacrum absolutely does?
There is an official example of a creature successfully casting simulacrum without a piece of the creature. Ravenloft's scroll has nothing to do with this accomplishment.
The RAW does not specify any penalty for using eschew materials to forgo the requirement of that material component.
The spell does not use the material component in anyway. It doesn't say it grows a creature from the nail clipping.
The RAW actually supports forgoing the requirement of the material component. It doesn't say "ignore", it says "you don't need it".
There is simply nothing, no rule text, no official example, or even logic, that supports anything that you've said.
Please give us something official, not something you concocted, that supports your claim, instead of making up stuff like how minor creation decides first and can ignore its material component blueprint while simulacrum must use its material component blueprint first before deciding.Last edited by gogogome; 2019-05-19 at 09:33 PM.
-
2019-05-19, 08:52 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2012
Re: Question about simulacrum
-
2019-05-19, 08:54 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
Re: Question about simulacrum
All I see is someone saying green and blue is identical because cyan looks like blue and green looks like cyan.
What does humanoid type have to do with humanoid shape? If you're doing that then why can't I say pit fiends are outsider shape because they have the outsider type? Dragonborn is dragon shape not humanoid shape.
Why is humanoid shape the only classification? How about "monster" shape? I'm pretty sure even angels would be considered monster shape because wings aren't normal.
-
2019-05-19, 10:29 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2012
Re: Question about simulacrum
Something good came out of this thread. Introducing THE SIMULACRIST prestige class!
-
2019-05-19, 10:43 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2014
- Location
- Avatar By Astral Seal!
Re: Question about simulacrum
Did you just say Dragonborn are Dragon-shaped?
Thees guys?
Spoiler: Image Again
They're not humanoid? They even have the humanoid type!
Moreover, I think everyone can agree that Pit Fiends are not HUMAN in appearance, and that wasn't the point. They at least look humanoid-monstrous, to be sure, but still humanoid in general figure. If you disqualify Pit Fiends from looking humanoid, you disqualify Dragonborn (and probably lots of other races to boot) that actually have the type.
And, honestly, the main point is just that WotC did NOT do a good job designing 3.5. It's a fun game, but good lord does it have its issues. So treating RAW like a gospel that shall not be deviated from even the slightest bit... It's a recipe for an unfun game in many cases.
How many games are IMPROVED by allowing you to create a simulacrum of a 36 or more HD Pit Fiend by using Eschew Materials? How many games are improved by allowing the same thing, only templated to hell and back? Because those don't add HD, and therefore are effectively free on your Sim-or at least no more expensive than the basic Sim costs.I have a LOT of Homebrew!
Spoiler: Former AvatarsSpoiler: Avatar (Not In Use) By Linkele
Spoiler: Individual Avatar Pics
-
2019-05-19, 10:53 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2014
Re: Question about simulacrum
This I can answer as I actually did this in a game before. The answer is: a lot. It's planar binding without all the baggage. I'm getting my Paeliryon (not pit fiend as I like paeliryon more) one way or another via Greater Planar Binding or Simulacrum, and choosing to pay 1,800xp to get one that doesn't require the DM to try and stab us in the back was well accepted by all. Literally no one gave a damn or even questioned the possibility of this especially since at our table each player can solo a creature +2 CR than their level so I was actually the weakest member of the party. because meteor swarm ain't all that. And everyone loved the free mind blanks.
-
2019-05-19, 11:28 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2013
- Location
- Collegeville, PA
- Gender
Re: Question about simulacrum
False.
As is noted under spell-like abilities:
For creatures with spell-like abilities, a designated caster level defines how difficult it is to dispel their spell-like effects and to define any level-dependent variables (such as range and duration) the abilities might have. The creature’s caster level never affects which spell-like abilities the creature has; sometimes the given caster level is lower than the level a spellcasting character would need to cast the spell of the same name. If no caster level is specified, the caster level is equal to the creature’s Hit Dice.Resident Mad Scientist...
"It's so cool!"
Spoiler: ContestsVC I: Lord Commander Conrad Vayne, 1st place
VC II: Lorna, the Mother's Wrath, 5th place
VC XV: Tosk, Kursak the Marauder, Vierna Zalyl; 1st place, 6th/7th place
Kitchen Crashers Protocol for Peace
-
2019-05-20, 12:15 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Question about simulacrum
The general rule for advancing monsters is in the Monster Manual, and is invoked at the DM's option. Cosmic Descryer is, at best, a specific exception to that general rule. (It also requires your campaign to even be using Epic rules to exist.) That's about as plainly as I can put my position on this.
True Dragons are another special case as they "advance" through age categories; Pit Fiends do not.
Except simulacrum doesn't change caster level, it changes hit dice:
"It appears to be the same as the original, but it has only one-half of the real creature’s levels or Hit Dice (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD)."
Caster level is a function of levels/HD, but it is not the thing that the spell modifies directly.
And from the quote above: note the phrase "the real creature." More proof that the thing you're duplicating has to actually exist before you can, well, duplicate it.Last edited by Psyren; 2019-05-20 at 12:17 AM.
Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)
-
2019-05-20, 01:37 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
Re: Question about simulacrum
We are debating whether all advanced creatures exist or not. Invoking advancement rules have absolutely nothing to do with this fact. So why do you keep repeating it?
The reason we keep bringing up Cosmic Descryer is because Cosmic Descryer does not advance creatures. It literally does not affect any creature. It summons already advanced creatures. The special exception is that it summons advanced creatures not that it advances creatures. How can the existence of 246 different kinds of advanced creatures be a special exception from a PrC that doesn't affect creatures? Does the Cosmic Descryer PrC instantaneously advance 246 different kinds of creatures simultaneously? How many times do I have to repeat this to you? If Cosmic Descryer PrC does not advance any creature, then all creatures the Cosmic Descryer summons exists therefore you are wrong that advanced creatures don't exist. How is invoking advancement rules have any relevance to this fact?
Also where does it say it is invoked at the DM's option? It doesn't mention the DM at all. Please provide proof that it is invoked at the DM's option only. I have literally read the entire section top to bottom and it never differentiates between a player choosing to increase the strength of one of his monsters, or a DM.There are so many things that players can do that advance creature hit die. Golems. Constructs. Hommunculi. Voors. Dwarven Ancestors.
What does this have anything to do whether advanced creatures exist in d&d or not?
How is the method of advancement relevant? If all dragon advancement hd exists, why wouldn't other creature's advancement hd? Why do dragons get special treatment on whether their advanced versions exist or not? I don't see a separate rule entry for dragon advancement. Even in the Dragon's section of both the Srd and MM I do not see anything differentiating advanced dragons with other advanced creatures. Please show where it says dragon advancement is a special exception.Last edited by gogogome; 2019-05-20 at 02:38 AM.
-
2019-05-20, 01:50 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
Re: Question about simulacrum
Let me explain Psyren's entire argument.
1. Advancement rules can only be used by DM. Therefore if the DM doesn't invoke those rules then advanced creatures do not exist.
2. Dragons are a special exception because I say so. I'm not gonna cite any RAW because none exists and I don't want to admit that.
3. Golems are a special exception because I say so. I'm not gonna cite any RAW because none exists and I don't want to admit that.
4. Voors are a special exception because I say so. I'm not gonna cite any RAW because none exists and I don't want to admit that.
5. Cosmic Descryer is a special exception because I say so. I'm not gonna cite any RAW because none exists and I don't want to admit that. I'm not going to even answer what this is a special exception of.
6. Dwarven Ancestor is a special exception because I say so. I'm not gonna cite any RAW because none exists and I don't want to admit that.
7. Nowhere in the MM does it say only DMs can invoke advancement rules. But it is only invokable by DMs because I say so. I'm not gonna cite any RAW because none exists and I don't want to admit that. And everything that proves me wrong is a special exception because I say so. And I'm not gonna cite any RAW because none exists and I don't want to admit that.
No matter how many examples and rules you throw his way that shows he is wrong he will just call every single one of them a special exception. So stop arguing with him and let this thread die.Last edited by sorcererlover; 2019-05-20 at 01:53 AM.
-
2019-05-20, 02:09 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
Re: Question about simulacrum
Last edited by magicalmagicman; 2019-05-20 at 02:14 AM.
-
2019-05-20, 04:42 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2011
Re: Question about simulacrum
This isn't necessarily true. For creatures that have savage progressions, the logical choice would be to put them at the last savage progression that had half HD, or simply halfway through the savage progression, seeing as they're treated as class levels, and simulacrum says they get half their class levels.
World of Madius wiki - My personal campaign setting, including my homebrew Optional Gestalt/LA rules.
The new Quick Vestige List
-
2019-05-20, 05:45 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2012
Re: Question about simulacrum
Here is a Q&A with James Jacobs (co-creator of Pathfinder) in relation to simulacrums. Here he gives detail, and mentions that he regrets that the Pathfinder game dropped the requirement for the piece of a creature to cast the spell.
If ignore a material component allows you to duplicate any generic creature, then all of the NPC statblocks in the DMG are fair game too.
-
2019-05-20, 11:01 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2014
Re: Question about simulacrum
Yeah, Savage Species is the reason I don't like to used halved stats because the DM needs to homebrew what half creatures look like. Savage Species is RAW too and if all those example creatures have their stuff butchered until they reach full hd, then the DM can butcher the stats of any half hd creature he wants.
-
2019-05-20, 12:14 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
-
2019-05-20, 12:21 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Question about simulacrum
Nice of you but I'm good.
Given that playing a monster race at all requires DM allowance, presumably they would lay out their intentions for your advancement at that time. DMG:
"You can give your players new race options either by using creatures from the Monster Manual or new creatures of your own design. In either case, handle this radical change to the campaign with care."Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)
-
2019-05-20, 12:30 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
-
2019-05-20, 12:34 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Question about simulacrum
Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)
-
2019-05-20, 12:42 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
Re: Question about simulacrum
I'm confused. Everything outside core requires DM approval to be in the game. Everything in core requires DM approval to be in game. Is your argument: "The DM can ban, allow, homebrew, and house rule anything so none of the d&d rules matter?" Because then we're not talking about the d&d, we're talking about a specific game world created by a specific DM.
If you're saying that advanced creatures don't exist in a specific game world created by you, then you're right.
-
2019-05-20, 12:45 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Question about simulacrum
I don't think that none of the rules matter. Rather, I think that some can't be assumed to be baseline. Advanced versions of monsters fall into that category. And I've already said to the OP that the main thing that matters is whether his DM has made those available, not this thread. None of the rest of us get a say.
I'd say the same about monsters with class levels, to refer to a previous example. They certainly can exist, it doesn't mean that they absolutely do.Last edited by Psyren; 2019-05-20 at 12:46 PM.
Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)