Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 187
  1. - Top - End - #91
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    JNAProductions's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Fighting Demons!

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by sorcererlover View Post
    This is another example of a try hard. You should ignore it instead of bending over backwards as you call it to accommodate them. Because things with wings and tail are humanoid right? No? Then lets put in non humanoid shaped creatures who have the humanoid type as a gateway to link creatures with wings and tails to the humanoid shape.

    And this has nothing to do with whether simulacra can create advanced creatures or not. Nope. Just throw all the random **** you can hoping one will stick.
    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!

    Current Avatar by Elder Tsofu, who is awesome!

    Spoiler: Former Avatars
    Show
    Spoiler: Avatar (Not In Use) By Professor Gnoll!
    Show


    Spoiler: Avatar (Not In Use) By Cdr. Fallout!
    Show

  2. - Top - End - #92
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2013

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by gogogome View Post
    m, Robo's Planar Ally example was enough to convince me that he is right back when he made his Planar Binding is Slavery thread. If this and dragons and golems and Cosmic Descryer and the fact that the advancement entry is not an optional or variant rule is not enough to convince you then I must put you on the same boat as redking.
    By the strictest possible RAW, neither side is correct . The rule is unclear due to this:
    Quote Originally Posted by SRD
    However, there are several methods by which extraordinary or unique monsters can be created using a typical creature as the foundation: by adding character classes, increasing a monster’s Hit Dice, or by adding a template to a monster
    Emphasis mine. Can, as a verb, means
    Quote Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster Dictionary
    used to indicate possibility
    or
    Quote Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster Dictionary
    be inherently able or designed to
    and thus the general rule we have here can be reasonably read as either: "...there are several methods by which extraordinary or unique monsters [are possibly created] using..." or "...there are several methods by which extraordinary or unique monsters [are designed to] be created using..."

    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:

    Quote Originally Posted by sorcererlover View Post
    This is another example of a try hard. You should ignore it instead of bending over backwards as you call it to accommodate them. Because things with wings and tail are humanoid right? No? Then lets put in non humanoid shaped creatures who have the humanoid type as a gateway to link creatures with wings and tails to the humanoid shape.

    And this has nothing to do with whether simulacra can create advanced creatures or not. Nope. Just throw all the random **** you can hoping one will stick.
    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.

  3. - Top - End - #93
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Crake's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by gogogome View Post
    And we have the mirror mephit ignoring the material component and creating Simulacra of PCs. You have once again ignored the mirror mephit. Please stop ignoring the mirror mephit. The mirror mephit proves you are completely incorrect and nothing you can say or do will change this fact so stop ignoring the mirror mephit and accept that you are incorrect.
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kazyan View Post
    Playing a wizard the way GitP says wizards should be played requires the equivalent time and effort investment of a university minor. Do you really want to go down this rabbit hole, or are you comfortable with just throwing a souped-up Orb of Fire at the thing?
    Quote Originally Posted by atemu1234 View Post
    Humans are rarely truly irrational, just wrong.

  4. - Top - End - #94
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by Crake View Post
    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.
    I will repeat again. Is this your opinion of how minor and major creation works?

  5. - Top - End - #95
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by ZamielVanWeber View Post
    By the strictest possible RAW, neither side is correct . The rule is unclear due to this:

    Emphasis mine. Can, as a verb, means or and thus the general rule we have here can be reasonably read as either: "...there are several methods by which extraordinary or unique monsters [are possibly created] using..." or "...there are several methods by which extraordinary or unique monsters [are designed to] be created using..."

    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..
    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.

  6. - Top - End - #96
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by JNAProductions View Post
    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'm not ignoring anything. I'm pointing out that you people are calling a lizard with claws tails and wings a humanoid.

  7. - Top - End - #97
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    JNAProductions's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Fighting Demons!

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by sorcererlover View Post
    I'm not ignoring anything. I'm pointing out that you people are calling a lizard with claws tails and wings a humanoid.
    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
    Show


    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!

    Current Avatar by Elder Tsofu, who is awesome!

    Spoiler: Former Avatars
    Show
    Spoiler: Avatar (Not In Use) By Professor Gnoll!
    Show


    Spoiler: Avatar (Not In Use) By Cdr. Fallout!
    Show

  8. - Top - End - #98
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by JNAProductions View Post
    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
    Show


    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.
    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.

  9. - Top - End - #99
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Crake's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by gogogome View Post
    I will repeat again. Is this your opinion of how minor and major creation works?
    Material Component

    A tiny piece of matter of the same sort of item you plan to create with minor creation.
    In this case, the caster is deciding the item, and the material component follows.

    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kazyan View Post
    Playing a wizard the way GitP says wizards should be played requires the equivalent time and effort investment of a university minor. Do you really want to go down this rabbit hole, or are you comfortable with just throwing a souped-up Orb of Fire at the thing?
    Quote Originally Posted by atemu1234 View Post
    Humans are rarely truly irrational, just wrong.

  10. - Top - End - #100
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    JNAProductions's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Fighting Demons!

    Default 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!

    Current Avatar by Elder Tsofu, who is awesome!

    Spoiler: Former Avatars
    Show
    Spoiler: Avatar (Not In Use) By Professor Gnoll!
    Show


    Spoiler: Avatar (Not In Use) By Cdr. Fallout!
    Show

  11. - Top - End - #101
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by Crake View Post
    In this case, the caster is deciding the item, and the material component follows.

    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".
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Eschew Materials
    You can cast any spell that has a material component costing 1 gp or less without needing that component.
    Casting the spell and gaining the desired effect without needing that component means you are so good at casting simulacrum you can create simulacra of john without needing a piece of john. How is being so good at casting spells that you don't need a piece of john to create a simulacrum a john result in spell failure?

    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.

  12. - Top - End - #102
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2012

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by gogogome View Post
    I will repeat again. Is this your opinion of how minor and major creation works?
    No. You can eschew material components or ignore material components for these spells. The fact that you can ignore material components for these spells does not mean that a simulacrum need not be a duplicate of a creature, as specifically called out in the spell.

  13. - Top - End - #103
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by JNAProductions View Post
    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.
    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.

  14. - Top - End - #104
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2012

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Something good came out of this thread. Introducing THE SIMULACRIST prestige class!

  15. - Top - End - #105
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    JNAProductions's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Fighting Demons!

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by sorcererlover View Post
    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.
    Did you just say Dragonborn are Dragon-shaped?

    Thees guys?

    Spoiler: Image Again
    Show


    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!

    Current Avatar by Elder Tsofu, who is awesome!

    Spoiler: Former Avatars
    Show
    Spoiler: Avatar (Not In Use) By Professor Gnoll!
    Show


    Spoiler: Avatar (Not In Use) By Cdr. Fallout!
    Show

  16. - Top - End - #106

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by JNAProductions View Post
    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.
    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.

  17. - Top - End - #107
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Doctor Awkward's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Collegeville, PA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack_Simth View Post
    The spell is poorly defined. You're supposed to remove anything not appropriate to the level or hit dice, which may or may not include spell-like abilities
    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.
    So regardless of how many hit dice such a creature is reduced to, it's selection of spell-like abilities will never change. The only thing that might change is the caster level of those abilities, which in virtually all cases would logically be halved like everything else about the creature.
    Resident Mad Scientist...

    "It's so cool!"

    Spoiler: Contests
    Show
    VC 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

    Quote Originally Posted by Troacctid View Post
    But that's one of the things about interpreting RAW—when you pick a reading that goes against RAI, it often has a ripple effect that results in dysfunctions in other places.

  18. - Top - End - #108
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by gogogome View Post
    Which Robo repeatedly pointed out that Cosmic Descryer does not advance the hd of creatures but instead summons an already advanced creature.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by RoboEmperor View Post
    @Psyren
    Explain to me why 8 and 9hd red dragons don't exist.
    True Dragons are another special case as they "advance" through age categories; Pit Fiends do not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Awkward View Post
    False.

    As is noted under spell-like abilities:


    So regardless of how many hit dice such a creature is reduced to, it's selection of spell-like abilities will never change. The only thing that might change is the caster level of those abilities, which in virtually all cases would logically be halved like everything else about the creature.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Quote Originally Posted by gogogome View Post
    Cheers to Psyren the MVP "naysayer".
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  19. - Top - End - #109
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    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.
    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?


    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    True Dragons are another special case as they "advance" through age categories; Pit Fiends do 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.

  20. - Top - End - #110
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by gogogome View Post
    Do you even understand what we are debating about? 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.
    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.

  21. - Top - End - #111
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    The general rule for advancing monsters is in the Monster Manual, and is invoked at the DM's option.
    I have a question. If I'm playing a monster creature with level adjustment, can I use the advancing rules in the monster manual? Or does the DM level up for me and I have no choice in the matter? Or are monster creatures with level adjustment also "special exceptions"?
    Last edited by magicalmagicman; 2019-05-20 at 02:14 AM.

  22. - Top - End - #112
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Crake's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Awkward View Post
    False.

    As is noted under spell-like abilities:


    So regardless of how many hit dice such a creature is reduced to, it's selection of spell-like abilities will never change. The only thing that might change is the caster level of those abilities, which in virtually all cases would logically be halved like everything else about the creature.
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kazyan View Post
    Playing a wizard the way GitP says wizards should be played requires the equivalent time and effort investment of a university minor. Do you really want to go down this rabbit hole, or are you comfortable with just throwing a souped-up Orb of Fire at the thing?
    Quote Originally Posted by atemu1234 View Post
    Humans are rarely truly irrational, just wrong.

  23. - Top - End - #113
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2012

    Default 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.

  24. - Top - End - #114

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by Crake View Post
    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.
    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.

  25. - Top - End - #115
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by sorcererlover View Post
    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.
    If this is not an exaggeration then the discussion is finished.

    Quote Originally Posted by magicalmagicman View Post
    I have a question. If I'm playing a monster creature with level adjustment, can I use the advancing rules in the monster manual? Or does the DM level up for me and I have no choice in the matter? Or are monster creatures with level adjustment also "special exceptions"?
    Another excellent example showing how ludicrous Psyren's position is.

  26. - Top - End - #116
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by sorcererlover View Post
    Let me explain Psyren's entire argument.
    Nice of you but I'm good.

    Quote Originally Posted by magicalmagicman View Post
    I have a question. If I'm playing a monster creature with level adjustment, can I use the advancing rules in the monster manual? Or does the DM level up for me and I have no choice in the matter? Or are monster creatures with level adjustment also "special exceptions"?
    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."

    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Quote Originally Posted by gogogome View Post
    Cheers to Psyren the MVP "naysayer".
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  27. - Top - End - #117
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    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."
    You're quoting the section in the DMG that describes homebrewing new races not monsters with level adjustment.

  28. - Top - End - #118
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by magicalmagicman View Post
    You're quoting the section in the DMG that describes homebrewing new races not monsters with level adjustment.
    No, it's part of the section that talks about level adjustment - DMG 171-172. The "New" in "New Races" means "races not in the PHB." That's why it's also referring to the Monster Manual, nothing in there is homebrewed.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Quote Originally Posted by gogogome View Post
    Cheers to Psyren the MVP "naysayer".
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  29. - Top - End - #119
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    No, it's part of the section that talks about level adjustment - DMG 171-172. The "New" in "New Races" means "races not in the PHB." That's why it's also referring to the Monster Manual, nothing in there is homebrewed.
    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.

  30. - Top - End - #120
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Quote Originally Posted by gogogome View Post
    Cheers to Psyren the MVP "naysayer".
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •