Results 181 to 187 of 187
Thread: Question about simulacrum
-
2019-05-22, 05:59 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2011
Re: Question about simulacrum
I mean, to be fair, I have no problem with creating simulacra or gating in advanced creatures if you have a piece of them/can call them by name, but you don't just get to whip them up out of thin air.
At best, even in a hypothetical world in which I agreed that simulacrum could be used without a material component, you still need an original to be duplicating. You can't just say "I wanna duplicate an advanced pit fiend", you have to specify "I want to duplicate Kralazyxth the fifteenth duke of the 3rd layer of hell" and in this case, Kralazyxth just happens to be an advanced pit fiend.
Anything you have yet to encounter in some form, whether it be reading it in a book, hearing it from an NPC, or meeting it in person, if you haven't actually encountered it in some way, then you as a player have no right to demand it's existence in a game. A DM doesn't even need to include the existence of every monster in every monster manual ever either. For example, I have no gith or slaad in my setting, because I don't have limbo or an astral plane.World of Madius wiki - My personal campaign setting, including my homebrew Optional Gestalt/LA rules.
The new Quick Vestige List
-
2019-05-22, 06:30 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2017
- Location
- Italy
- Gender
-
2019-05-22, 07:01 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2012
Re: Question about simulacrum
I have no problem with it either. I expect there will be quite a trade in arcane circles for bits of advanced creatures, and the cost won't be under 1gp. And a Cosmic Descryer can call a 36 HD Pit Fiend by RAW and RAI - but then the character doing it would have to be well over 30th level.
If you can eschew or ignore material components to cast simulacrum without the bit of the creature, then a 36 HD Paragon Creature Solar is on the table. Even Robo seemed to back down from that, which is an indication that he realizes how absurd his postion is.
-
2019-05-22, 11:11 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Question about simulacrum
Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)
-
2019-05-22, 02:18 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
-
2019-05-22, 08:28 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
Re: Question about simulacrum
No one is telling you how to run your game. As Psyren accurately pointed out earlier the result of an internet discussion doesn't matter at a real table. If you don't like something it's well within your right to ban it or house rule it. But that doesn't change how the rules work.
For example, i've met a few people who don't allow retraining rules in PHBII because it doesn't make sense to them that people can forget what they've learned. Do they have to include retraining rules in their game? No. Should a player point out that by RAW retraining is no different than switching majors in college and try to force his DM to use something he doesn't want? Definitely No. But this does not change the fact that d&d 3.5 has retraining rules and if you follow them as is players can switch school specialization every single level.
Same thing here. Are any of us forcing you to include gith or slaad in your setting? No. Are any of us forcing you to include advanced creatures in your setting? Also no. Are any of us forcing you to let players ignore simulacrum's material component? Also no and there's nothing wrong with putting your foot down as DM and saying you can't ignore the material component because it unbalances your game. But ruled as written players can ignore the material components of simulacrum and create advanced creatures without needing to gate one in beforehand and what you do in your game and your rights as a DM has no impact on how the rules function.
I was under the impression we were having a ruled as written discussion because that's what this forum does. We only talk about how things work ruled as written here. If you're using the d&d 3.5 rule set as a tool for your own custom world then none of this matters. Nothing on the forums matter. Hell not even the books or the rules themselves matter. That's why it's called homebrew. But if you're sticking as close to the official setting as possible, ruled as written both you and Psyren are completely wrong about everything in this thread, and your right as a DM to ban or house rule things has no relevance.Last edited by gogogome; 2019-05-22 at 09:18 PM.
-
2019-05-24, 10:11 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
Re: Question about simulacrum
Why are we even talking about some homebrew setting? Every single post you and RoboEmperor said had RAW or Ruled as Written written in it. So why do people keep bringing up homebrew?
The reason we talk about RAW on these forums because we need a common base for any discussion to happen. And when we don't this is exactly what happens. People going in circles repeating everything over and over because a couple of people for some reason decide to talk about their own homebrew thing and ignore the RAW that proves them wrong because they decide to exclude that rule or house rule differently in their homebrew setting.
In the official core-only setting that is greyhawk all advanced creatures exist and they are generic non-unique and available for simulacrum should the player find a way to ignore the material component, and by extension all advanced creatures are up for grabs with Polymorph spells and Gate. Pick any page of this thread for proof. Everything has repeated over and over and over again.
No one is dictating anything to a DM. So why do you keep acting like RoboEmperor is a munchkin rule lawyer telling DMs how to run their game like a problem player when we're having a scholarly debate about RAW on the internet? You're intentionally trying to portray him like a bad guy here when he's done nothing except dig up archaic RAW that we'd never have known if it weren't for him. Or are you his DM and you two are having a RAW debate about your table here?