Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 187
  1. - Top - End - #121
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Prestige Class
    Prestige classes are purely optional and always under the purview of the DM. We encourage you, as the DM, to tightly limit the prestige classes available in your campaign. The example prestige classes are certainly not all encompassing or definitive. They might not even be appropriate for your campaign. The best prestige classes for your campaign are the ones you tailor make yourself.
    So just to be clear, you're also saying the existence of PrCs cannot be assumed to be baseline? Because I disagree with that.
    Last edited by magicalmagicman; 2019-05-20 at 12:52 PM.

  2. - Top - End - #122
    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
    So just to be clear, you're also saying the existence of PrCs cannot be assumed to be baseline? Because I disagree with that.
    Do you consider PrCs, playable monsters, and modified monsters to be on equal footing at most tables? I think there's a lack of nuance there myself.

    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)

  3. - Top - End - #123
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    Do you consider PrCs, playable monsters, and modified monsters to be on equal footing at most tables? I think there's a lack of nuance there myself.
    Yes. If there are clear rules that aren't variant it has equal footing at all tables. Even broken stuff like BoVD's sacrifice rules have equal footing at all tables.

    And why are we talking about "most tables"? We're talking about d&d aren't we? A world where all 1st party content is included? If we're talking about the OP's game world then we're not talking about d&d, we're talking about the OP's game world.

  4. - Top - End - #124
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum



    We were arguing with someone who believes even core-only isn't baseline.

    And this revelation doesn't change the fact he arbitrarily declared advanced dragons to be baseline without citing any rules while saying other advanced creatures are not because dragons advance by age.

    I would also like to point out dragons require the advancement rules just as much as any other creature. MM does not give stats for any dragon. You have to homebrew their feat and skill allocation just like Pit Fiends yet advanced dragons are baseline and other advanced creatures are not.

  5. - Top - End - #125
    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
    Yes. If there are clear rules that aren't variant it has equal footing at all tables. Even broken stuff like BoVD's sacrifice rules have equal footing at all tables.
    Then by that rationale, yes, all PrCs would require specific DM approval since that is what the rule says. I personally think PrCs can be assumed a bit more readily than playable monsters, but I acknowledge there could be table variation there.

    Quote Originally Posted by magicalmagicman View Post
    And why are we talking about "most tables"? We're talking about d&d aren't we? A world where all 1st party content is included?
    Just because something is printed in a 1st party source doesn't mean it is baseline. Custom items are 1st party. Variant rules like Spell Points are 1st party. 1st party monsters can have 1st party class levels.

    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)

  6. - Top - End - #126
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    Just because something is printed in a 1st party source doesn't mean it is baseline. Custom items are 1st party. Variant rules like Spell Points are 1st party. 1st party monsters can have 1st party class levels.
    Custom items are explicitly said to be "estimations". Variant Rules are labeled "variant rules" meaning they are not baseline. I'm someone who believes all 1st party material that is not a variant rules or requires homebrew to be baseline. For example, someone mentioned savage species, I believe every official savage progression in that book is baseline and any savage progression the DM homebrewed using the book as a guideline is not baseline.

  7. - Top - End - #127
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Rather than argue what is baseline and what is not, I'll just throw in my 2cents and say I agree with gogogome that you are being arbitrary and unfair when you say advanced dragons that use advancing rules are baseline while other advanced creatures that use advancing rules are not baseline and that even in a core-only setting advanced creatures are baseline.

  8. - Top - End - #128
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Oh and one more thing. I believe it is the DM that advances Dwarven Ancestors, but the player can still call Dwarven Ancestors of any hd he wants so all the advanced versions of Dwarven Ancestors are baseline regardless of whether DMs invokes the advancement rules or not. So I agree with gogogome there too that whether advancement rules being exclusive to DMs or not does not matter.

  9. - Top - End - #129
    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
    Rather than argue what is baseline and what is not, I'll just throw in my 2cents and say I agree with gogogome that you are being arbitrary and unfair when you say advanced dragons that use advancing rules are baseline while other advanced creatures that use advancing rules are not baseline and that even in a core-only setting advanced creatures are baseline.
    I don't think Dragons being unique is arbitrary at all. Living (mortal) creatures age, and true dragons are some of the only ones that advance automatically when they do. Thus by allowing dragons at all - which are baseline - that phenomenon is incorporated.

    None of that applies to Pit Fiends. We don't know if they age at all, and even if they do, we don't have any kind of DM-agnostic tie between that and their advancement.

    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)

  10. - Top - End - #130
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    I don't think Dragons being unique is arbitrary at all. Living (mortal) creatures age, and true dragons are some of the only ones that advance automatically when they do. Thus by allowing dragons at all - which are baseline - that phenomenon is incorporated.

    None of that applies to Pit Fiends. We don't know if they age at all, and even if they do, we don't have any kind of DM-agnostic tie between that and their advancement.
    You are saying true dragon's advancement entry in their stat block is incorporated because they advance through aging but not monsters with LA because they advance by XP instead of aging. Saying only creatures that advance through aging have their advanced forms included in the baseline is arbitrary. Why are creatures who advance through xp denied? Living mortals also gain xp. Thus if you allow any creature with LA to exist the phenomenon should also be incorporated.

  11. - Top - End - #131
    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 Psyren View Post
    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)."
    ...And, as it noted... a creature's selection of SLA's never changes, regardless of it's caster level, which is tied directly to hit dice unless otherwise specified.


    Caster level is a function of levels/HD, but it is not the thing that the spell modifies directly.
    ...
    I mean, you are essentially arguing for not changing the caster level of the simulacrum's SLA's if said CL is listed independently of hit dice, on account of the spell only halving the specifically listed statistics. Which is fine, so long as everyone realizes that makes the spell far more powerful than it probably ought to be.
    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.

  12. - Top - End - #132
    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 are saying true dragon's advancement entry in their stat block is incorporated because they advance through aging but not monsters with LA because they advance by XP instead of aging. Saying only creatures that advance through aging have their advanced forms included in the baseline is arbitrary.
    If it is arbitrary, it's hardly my fault. I'm not the one who tied true dragons' advancement to their aging and not that of pit fiends.

    Quote Originally Posted by magicalmagicman View Post
    Living mortals also gain xp.
    Player characters do, as an award from the DM, yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Awkward View Post
    ...And, as it noted... a creature's selection of SLA's never changes, regardless of it's caster level, which is tied directly to hit dice unless otherwise specified.
    SLAs never change regardless of caster level =/= SLAs never change regardless of hit dice. Especially since Simulacrum specifically says it affects the resulting creatures' special abilities. SLAs are a special ability, as are supernatural and extraordinary abilities.

    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)

  13. - Top - End - #133
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Crake's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by magicalmagicman View Post
    Custom items are explicitly said to be "estimations". Variant Rules are labeled "variant rules" meaning they are not baseline. I'm someone who believes all 1st party material that is not a variant rules or requires homebrew to be baseline. For example, someone mentioned savage species, I believe every official savage progression in that book is baseline and any savage progression the DM homebrewed using the book as a guideline is not baseline.
    I think you'll find that that entire chapter is literally variant rules, as outlined in the sidebar "Variant: No sidebars for variant rules" which is quite literally on the same page (p171).

    In contrast to the way the rest of the Dungeon Master’s Guide is structured, this chapter is composed of alternative rules, concepts, and ways of doing things. So, in this chapter, you won’t find variant rules set off in sidebars—the variant rules are actually the meat of the chapter. Sidebars are used in this chapter for “Behind the Curtain” topics, just as in the rest of the book.
    Also, dragon advancement is baseline because it quite clearly explains how a dragon advances: by age. If a dragon is 300 years old, it is X age category, etc etc. A pit fiend on the other hand has no explicit means of advancement. Is it number of souls collected? Is it experience? Is it age? Nobody knows for sure, so it comes down to the DM's decision.

    Quote Originally Posted by magicalmagicman View Post
    Oh and one more thing. I believe it is the DM that advances Dwarven Ancestors, but the player can still call Dwarven Ancestors of any hd he wants so all the advanced versions of Dwarven Ancestors are baseline regardless of whether DMs invokes the advancement rules or not. So I agree with gogogome there too that whether advancement rules being exclusive to DMs or not does not matter.
    That's not correct, because "18HD dwarven ancestor" is not a kind of creature. "The kind of creature to be bound must be known and stated." The only way to guarantee an advanced version is to know the name of an advanced version. But likewise, you may just call a standard version, and recieve an advanced one by luck/accident (obviously up to the HD limit of the spell you're casting).
    Last edited by Crake; 2019-05-21 at 12:21 AM.
    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.

  14. - Top - End - #134
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    If it is arbitrary, it's hardly my fault. I'm not the one who tied true dragons' advancement to their aging and not that of pit fiends.
    The game isn't being arbitrary. You're being arbitrary. You're arbitrary for saying creatures who advance with time are baseline and that creatures who advance with XP are not baseline because the rules don't make such a distinction. You're making the distinction, not the game. So you're being arbitrary, not the game.

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    Player characters do, as an award from the DM, yes.
    We have lots of creatures with LA with class levels. Like Hound Archon hero. So NPCs do gain xp. So there's no reason why advanced creatures with LA wouldn't be in baseline. If a level 10 paladin hound archon is baseline why isn't 16hd hound archons baseline?

    No offense but I think you know you're wrong and you're just dancing around the issue ignoring everything other people say to refuse to admit your error because you don't like simulacrum. I'm feeling the same frustration with you as I'm guessing others before me also felt.

    I showed in post 128 that the basis of your argument, that advanced creatures aren't baseline because only the DM invokes the advancement rules, is wrong because even if you're right, if a player wants to call an advanced dwarven ancestor, he can because the rules say they can. You ignored this post. You did not respond to it when it destroys the entire foundation of your position. And we can't have a discussion about it because you don't respond to anything that proves you wrong. Whether or not only the DM can make use of advancement rules is not related in anyway to whether advanced creatures are baseline because players can just ask for an advanced creature and get one even if he doesn't advance it himself.

    Other people have pointed out the rules don't make any distinction between creatures who advance with time or with xp. You're making the distinction, not the rules, which is why you're arbitrary, not the rules. And you refused to respond to their points. Where does the rules make the distinction between time advanced creatures and xp advanced creatures?

    Other people have pointed out the rules make use of advanced creatures everywhere including greater golems, advanced creatures like Voor Dreadful Lasher, and creatures with LA who have class levels. You're the one saying everything mentioned here is a special case. The rules don't. There is no general rule to be made a special exception from. You are making the distinction, not the rules. You're saying there is a general rule, not the rules. And when people ask you to show them where the rules make the distinction, you ignore them. Please show us the general rule that says advanced creatures aren't baseline unless noted otherwise because I can't find the rule and your previous reasoning is destroyed by the fact players can call advanced creatures that are advanced by the DM.

    So in conclusion, you're making all of these distinctions up, not the game, you act as if the game is making the distinctions when they aren't and ignore anyone who asks for a citation, and you ignore everyone who makes legitimate points that destroy your position, which is why I believe you're wrong and quite frustrating to debate with.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crake View Post
    That's not correct, because "18HD dwarven ancestor" is not a kind of creature. "The kind of creature to be bound must be known and stated." The only way to guarantee an advanced version is to know the name of an advanced version. But likewise, you may just call a standard version, and recieve an advanced one by luck/accident (obviously up to the HD limit of the spell you're casting).
    You missed the part where someone pointed out that the dwarven ancestor entry explicitly says you can call advanced versions of the dwarven ancestor with planar ally. And look up Voors while you're at it too. I suggest you read this thread so we don't waste another page repeating what was already said, and I'm probably am not gonna be here for that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crake View Post
    Also, dragon advancement is baseline because it quite clearly explains how a dragon advances: by age. If a dragon is 300 years old, it is X age category, etc etc. A pit fiend on the other hand has no explicit means of advancement. Is it number of souls collected? Is it experience? Is it age? Nobody knows for sure, so it comes down to the DM's decision.
    I'm arguing that advanced creatures with LA are all baseline, not pit fiend. Others are but not me. I'm arguing hound archons hd 7-18 are baseline. Whether a creature advances by age or xp should not matter. Why would it? If all advanced dragons are baseline then all advanced creatures with LA should be baseline too.
    Last edited by magicalmagicman; 2019-05-21 at 01:15 AM.

  15. - Top - End - #135
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2012

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    An epic Cosmic Descryer can use his magic to bring forth advanced creatures through his awesome epic abilities. Where do you find your 36HD advanced Pit Fiend for your simulacrum spell? For that matter, why do you believe eschew material components or ignore material components can do this for you? Why not an advanced creature with 10 levels of Ur-Priest + additional HD so your simulacrum can hve 10 levels of Ur-Priest as well. Surely they exist somewhere, which means that you can ignore the materal component and just bring it forth as a simulacrum.

    Or, we can put this down to a tortured reading of RAW, going directly against RAI also.

  16. - Top - End - #136
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Crake's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by magicalmagicman View Post
    You missed the part where someone pointed out that the dwarven ancestor entry explicitly says you can call advanced versions of the dwarven ancestor with planar ally. And look up Voors while you're at it too. I suggest you read this thread so we don't spend another page debating the same thing all over again.
    Firstly, I didn't miss those parts. Secondly, note it says planar ally, not planar binding. If you have a look at planar ally, you actually have no real control over what creature you're going to recieve, you simply make a request, and your deity grants you a creature. So you can request from your deity "I want the strongest dwarven ancestor you can send me" when casting greater planar ally, and you may recieve an 18HD one, you may only recieve a 15HD one if that is the strongest that the deity has in their employ, or your deity may just straight up give you something else. This logic does not extend to planar binding, because you decide the creature to be called, not your deity, and the limits of your decision are a kind of creature, or a specifc named creature. Dwarven ancestor is a kind of creature, Kilgarth The Worldbreaker, an 18HD advanced dwarven ancestor is a specific named creature, but "18HD advanced dwarven ancestor" fits into neither of those categories.

    So, to put it shortly, unless you have specifically met and gotten the name of an 18HD dwarven ancestor, there is no guaranteed way to actually call one, it comes down to your DM's choice.

    Quote Originally Posted by magicalmagicman View Post
    I'm arguing that advanced creatures with LA are all baseline, not pit fiend. Others are but not me. I'm arguing hound archons hd 7-18 are baseline. Whether a creature advances by age or xp should not matter. Why would it? If all advanced dragons are baseline then all advanced creatures with LA should be baseline too.
    I'm not sure why LA factors into it at all? LA only comes in for player characters, and player characters don't advance by racial HD, they advanced by character class, and if you're not talking about a PC, then LA is irrelevant, so racial HD advancement in relation to LA are completely disconnected topics.
    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.

  17. - Top - End - #137
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by Crake View Post
    Firstly, I didn't miss those parts. Secondly, note it says planar ally, not planar binding. If you have a look at planar ally, you actually have no real control over what creature you're going to recieve, you simply make a request, and your deity grants you a creature. So you can request from your deity "I want the strongest dwarven ancestor you can send me" when casting greater planar ally, and you may recieve an 18HD one, you may only recieve a 15HD one if that is the strongest that the deity has in their employ, or your deity may just straight up give you something else. This logic does not extend to planar binding, because you decide the creature to be called, not your deity, and the limits of your decision are a kind of creature, or a specifc named creature. Dwarven ancestor is a kind of creature, Kilgarth The Worldbreaker, an 18HD advanced dwarven ancestor is a specific named creature, but "18HD advanced dwarven ancestor" fits into neither of those categories.

    So, to put it shortly, unless you have specifically met and gotten the name of an 18HD dwarven ancestor, there is no guaranteed way to actually call one, it comes down to your DM's choice.
    Whatever dude. I saw how vehemently you argued that using eschew materials to no longer need the material component for simulacrum resulted in the spell failing when there was literally no RAW that supports your position and how gogogome had to pull teeth and write walls of text to show how everything you said was baseless house ruling trying to be passed off as RAW just because you don't like simulacrum and I'm not really interested in putting in the effort like gogogome did.

    I also remember how you vehemently argued that disturbing a creature bound in a magic circle is exactly the same as disturbing the magic circle all because you didn't like how planar binding could be used as an assassination tool and gogogome once again had to pull teeth and write walls of text to show you that nothing in the english dictionary or the d&d glossary said anything about that, and then you argued how a straw that isn't touching the circle but just bridging over the circle is also disturbing the circle.

    So yeah, if someone's gonna argue with you it's not me. I only stuck around this long just to call Psyren out on his conduct because he's responding to me only. But he's probably gonna ignore everything I said too.

  18. - Top - End - #138
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Crake's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by magicalmagicman View Post
    Whatever dude. I saw how vehemently you argued that using eschew materials to no longer need the material component for simulacrum resulted in the spell failing when there was literally no RAW that supports your position
    Except there is raw in the scroll of simulacrum which still required a piece of the creature to be duplicated, your side just shot it down "because it's from a module" only to constantly reference mirror mephits, which lo and behold, are also from a module. I also pointed out the brachina needing a gem for trap the soul as precedence for my argument, which is another bit of RAW that supports my position (here's a bonus question, if you DIDN'T need a gem for trap the soul, where would the soul end up, since the soul is trapped inside the gem?). Just because your side chooses to ignore these points, doesn't mean they don't exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by magicalmagicman View Post
    and how gogogome had to pull teeth and write walls of text to show how everything you said was baseless house ruling trying to be passed off as RAW just because you don't like simulacrum and I'm not really interested in putting in the effort like gogogome did.
    Except that was RoboEmperor.

    Quote Originally Posted by magicalmagicman View Post
    I also remember how you vehemently argued that disturbing a creature bound in a magic circle is exactly the same as disturbing the magic circle all because you didn't like how planar binding could be used as an assassination tool and gogogome once again had to pull teeth and write walls of text to show you that nothing in the english dictionary or the d&d glossary said anything about that, and then you argued how a straw that isn't touching the circle but just bridging over the circle is also disturbing the circle.
    That was also RoboEmperor. And another thread. Something something external baggage.

    Quote Originally Posted by magicalmagicman View Post
    So yeah, if someone's gonna argue with you it's not me. I only stuck around this long just to call Psyren out on his conduct because he's responding to me only. But he's probably gonna ignore everything I said too.
    You can choose not to address my points if you wish, but at the same time, I can still address your points when they're faulty. Honestly, if you're getting this worked up about an internet discussion about the rules in a tabletop roleplay game, maybe you should do something else for a while to cool off.
    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.

  19. - Top - End - #139
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by Crake View Post
    Except that was RoboEmperor.
    Come on man it's just one page back.

    Quote Originally Posted by gogogome View Post
    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.

    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.
    RoboEmperor ragequit pages ago.
    Last edited by magicalmagicman; 2019-05-21 at 02:25 AM.

  20. - Top - End - #140
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Crake's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by magicalmagicman View Post
    Come on man it's just one page back.
    The whole thing regarding planar binding and magic circles was not in this thread at all.

    Also, that whole post was just a rant against a strawman. He was acting as if I was arguing that the spell couldn't be cast without the material component, which is not my arguing point. The spell can be cast, but doing so would just result in a lump of snow, because you're quite literally duplicating nothing.
    Last edited by Crake; 2019-05-21 at 02:26 AM.
    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.

  21. - Top - End - #141
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by Crake View Post
    The whole thing regarding planar binding and magic circles was not in this thread at all.
    Yeah sorry quoted the wrong thing. RoboEmperor ragequit the thread pages ago cause he reached his "tantrum threshold" and I presume was about to go off all ranty like he usually does.

  22. - Top - End - #142
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Crake's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by magicalmagicman View Post
    Yeah sorry quoted the wrong thing. RoboEmperor ragequit the thread pages ago cause he reached his "tantrum threshold" and I presume was about to go off all ranty like he usually does.
    Not surprised honestly, his posts were getting quite emotionally charged, probably a good choice in his behalf.
    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 - #143
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by Crake View Post
    The whole thing regarding planar binding and magic circles was not in this thread at all.

    Also, that whole post was just a rant against a strawman. He was acting as if I was arguing that the spell couldn't be cast without the material component, which is not my arguing point. The spell can be cast, but doing so would just result in a lump of snow, because you're quite literally duplicating nothing.
    Yeah, see, even after gogogome pointed out that the ravenloft scroll requiring material component is irrelevant because as long as one official creature creates a simulacrum without a material component, it proves that it is possible to cast simulacrum without material components, and you're still here saying the ravenloft scroll somehow negates mirror mephits accomplishment.

    gogogome pointed out the spell text makes 0 references to the material component like every single other spell that has ignorable material components. The creature is not grown from its nail clipping, so why is this material component not ignorable? You said the spell doesn't know what to replicate, but in Major Creation's case you said the spell does know what to replicate without the material component. What kind of hypocrisy is this? Why does major creation know to create iron without a blue print material just because the caster wills it, but in Simulacrum's case the caster can't create the creature just because he wills it?

    Let me extend this a bit further. How does shadow conjuration know to summon a shadow creature? Because the caster wills it. How does fabricate know to create knives? Because the caster the wills it. How does shadow evocation know to create a fireball effect? Because the caster wills it. How does summon monster know to summon a dog? Because the caster wills it. How does major creation with eschew materials know to create an adamantine shortsword? Because the caster wills it.

    So why does a simulacrum without a material component know to create a hound archon? Because the caster wills it. You need to show that simulacrum is a special exception to all other spells. You haven't done that.

    gogogome also pointed out eschew material doesn't ignore components. It says you no longer need it. So if we just use the words it becomes: Someone casting simulacrum to create a duplicate hound archon no longer needs the material component. This is more valid than your interpretation by far. Mainly because it does not conflict with RAW and uses exact words, but also because there are no rules that support your claim in any way. If we have two interpretations, one that doesn't defy RAW, and one that does and also has no rules that support it, which one is right? The one that defies RAW and has no rules supporting it, or one that doesn't and is consistent with every single other spell in the game?

    If the spell text listed the piece of creature as a target, or if the spell text uses the material component in any way, you might have a case, but it doesn't. The piece of creature is just as involved in the spell as bat guano is for fireball.

    So you see, even after both RoboEmperor and gogogome posted walls of text showing you that your claim that simulacrum wouldn't know what creature it's replicating is a house rule trying to be passed off as RAW, you reject all of them and just call it a strawman. So what chance do I have of convincing you? The answer is 0. So it's pointless to pull teeth and post walls of text when anyone not deadset against something working can clearly see you're wrong.

    And ultimately, ultimately, even if you're right, a simple Summon Component destroys every single thing you've tried to accomplish here because that spell actually creates the piece of creature.

    edit: Huh, it's not ravenloft but castle greyhawk. gogogome must have mixed it up.
    Last edited by magicalmagicman; 2019-05-21 at 05:31 AM.

  24. - Top - End - #144
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2012

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Next up: using ignore material components in conjunction with simulacrum to make a simulacrum of a Paragon Creature templated Pit Fiend. Indeed, why stop there?

  25. - Top - End - #145
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Jack_Simth's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2006

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by redking View Post
    Next up: using ignore material components in conjunction with simulacrum to make a simulacrum of a Paragon Creature templated Pit Fiend. Indeed, why stop there?
    Indeed: Why? Why make a mere Paragon Pit Fiend when you can make a Paragon Half-Dragon (Silver) Half-Dragon (Gold) Half-Dragon (Copper) Half-Dragon (Brass) Half-Dragon (Bronze) Solar. But why stop there? Why not also toss in the Multi-headed template? Half-Fey? Half-Celestial? Half-Fiend? Phrenic?

    "The creature must exist" combined with "Not everything possible within the rules necessarily does" makes a handy limiting factor.

    Also, it's just Eschew Materials. Or maybe you work around the XP cost of Wish.
    Of course, by the time I finish this post, it will already be obsolete. C'est la vie.

  26. - Top - End - #146
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2012

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack_Simth View Post
    Indeed: Why? Why make a mere Paragon Pit Fiend when you can make a Paragon Half-Dragon (Silver) Half-Dragon (Gold) Half-Dragon (Copper) Half-Dragon (Brass) Half-Dragon (Bronze) Solar. But why stop there? Why not also toss in the Multi-headed template? Half-Fey? Half-Celestial? Half-Fiend? Phrenic?

    "The creature must exist" combined with "Not everything possible within the rules necessarily does" makes a handy limiting factor.

    Also, it's just Eschew Materials. Or maybe you work around the XP cost of Wish.
    It appears that I have to think big. OK - all those things, plus all stats must have additional +5 inherent bonuses to all their ability scores. Perhaps finding such a creature you describe above would be difficult, indeed, a scholar of such matters would pay a pretty penny for the truename of such a creature to call, but no matter; we just eschewed it, because a nail clipping of such a creature not being listed as having a gp value (according to Robo there), it must be worthless and under 1gp. Failing that we have ignore material components.

  27. - Top - End - #147
    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
    The game isn't being arbitrary. You're being arbitrary. You're arbitrary for saying creatures who advance with time are baseline and that creatures who advance with XP are not baseline because the rules don't make such a distinction. You're making the distinction, not the game. So you're being arbitrary, not the game.
    I still don't see how the concept that "creatures age, but not necessarily advance" is me being arbitrary. You can have an elf commoner that lives for a thousand years without gaining a single HD. And few creatures exemplify this better than fiends, who are both immortal and mass-produced.

    Quote Originally Posted by magicalmagicman View Post
    We have lots of creatures with LA with class levels. Like Hound Archon hero. So NPCs do gain xp.
    You're right, I did forget cohorts. So I'll modify my statement to say: party members gain XP, as an award from the DM.

    If you mean just NPCs in the world, they're simply given whatever levels they need for the DM to tell their story.

    Quote Originally Posted by magicalmagicman View Post
    No offense but I think you know you're wrong and you're just dancing around the issue ignoring everything other people say to refuse to admit your error because you don't like simulacrum. I'm feeling the same frustration with you as I'm guessing others before me also felt.
    None taken, because I know no such thing.
    But why should my interpretation of the spell frustrate you? I'm not your DM; only their opinion matters in the end. And I'm not ignoring what people say - rather, I quote up until or just a little bit past the premise that I disagree with (for example, your belief that I "know I'm wrong") and then disagree with that premise, which is cleaner than then going on to explicitly refute everything flowing from that premise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack_Simth View Post
    Indeed: Why? Why make a mere Paragon Pit Fiend when you can make a Paragon Half-Dragon (Silver) Half-Dragon (Gold) Half-Dragon (Copper) Half-Dragon (Brass) Half-Dragon (Bronze) Solar. But why stop there? Why not also toss in the Multi-headed template? Half-Fey? Half-Celestial? Half-Fiend? Phrenic?

    "The creature must exist" combined with "Not everything possible within the rules necessarily does" makes a handy limiting factor.
    Precisely - this is just eminently rational from where I'm sitting.
    Last edited by Psyren; 2019-05-21 at 09:21 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)

  28. - Top - End - #148
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2014

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack_Simth View Post
    Indeed: Why? Why make a mere Paragon Pit Fiend when you can make a Paragon Half-Dragon (Silver) Half-Dragon (Gold) Half-Dragon (Copper) Half-Dragon (Brass) Half-Dragon (Bronze) Solar. But why stop there? Why not also toss in the Multi-headed template? Half-Fey? Half-Celestial? Half-Fiend? Phrenic?

    "The creature must exist" combined with "Not everything possible within the rules necessarily does" makes a handy limiting factor.
    First, templated creatures and advanced creatures are two entirely different things. Advanced creatures are built into their monster stat block so they exist if the monster exists. Advancement is how physically strong a creature can get. Templates on the other hand, doesn't say anything. There is no guarantee other than the sample creature that templated creatures exist.

    Second, I have a problem with people changing the rules because of one spell. If simulacrum didn't exist, would you be arguing this hard that advanced creatures don't exist? It's like watching people say creatures with multiple natural attacks can only make as many attacks per round as they have iterative attacks from BAB regardless of how many natural weapons they have because a spellcaster using polymorph once turned into a hydra and made 12 attacks per round.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack_Simth View Post
    Also, it's just Eschew Materials. Or maybe you work around the XP cost of Wish.
    I never said it wasn't really, really high-op.

    And you guys think advanced creatures are what lets simulacrum break the game? How about a 40hd base creature? Like an Anaxim? or an Infernal? Or Dream Larva? No, advanced creatures are actually the suboptimal choice. Planar Binding dwarfs Simulacrum with advanced creatures by miles because Planar Binding doesn't have an xp or gold cost and you get the same creature.

    I don't care whether a particular trick works or not. I care that people are making up random BS and doing everything they can to rule lawyer something plain and obvious while blocking their ears and screaming "LA LA LA" because one spell takes advantage of it.

    The problem with simulacrum is ignoring the material component. If the material component is unignorable then the spell is fine which is why I've seen plenty of DMs house rule that way and ban mirror mephits as cohorts or improved familiars.

    So go ahead and make up rules that don't exist and label literally half the game as a special exception with the rules you made up because of one potentially game breaking spell that no one is denying is very, very powerful takes advantage of it to be on par with Planar Binding instead of not taking advantage of it and breaking the game with epic creatures. I'm not the only one who sees that all of you are irrational.
    Last edited by RoboEmperor; 2019-05-21 at 01:12 PM.

  29. - Top - End - #149
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by RoboEmperor View Post
    First, templated creatures and advanced creatures are two entirely different things. Advanced creatures are built into their monster stat block so they exist if the monster exists. Advancement is how physically strong a creature can get. Templates on the other hand, doesn't say anything. There is no guarantee other than the sample creature that templated creatures exist.
    The Monster Manual treats those as one and the same:

    "Each of the monster entries in Chapters 1 through 3 describes a typical creature of its kind. 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."

    Note in particular the clause "can be created" - they don't actually pre-exist, they must be made by the DM.

    Quote Originally Posted by RoboEmperor View Post
    Second, I have a problem with people changing the rules because of one spell. If simulacrum didn't exist, would you be arguing this hard that advanced creatures don't exist?
    Absolutely, because shapeshifting and conjuring exist also. This is a balance issue for them too.

    And nowhere did I say simulacrum shouldn't exist. It just needs limits, like any spell.

    Quote Originally Posted by RoboEmperor View Post
    And you guys think advanced creatures are what lets simulacrum break the game? How about a 40hd base creature? Like an Anaxim? or an Infernal? Or Dream Larva? No, advanced creatures are actually the suboptimal choice.
    "Why are you complaining, this isn't as broken as Epic!" is not really persuasive.

    Quote Originally Posted by RoboEmperor View Post
    So go ahead and make up rules that don't exist and label literally half the game as a special exception with the rules you made up because of one potentially game breaking spell that no one is denying is very, very powerful takes advantage of it to be on par with Planar Binding instead of not taking advantage of it and breaking the game with epic creatures. I'm not the only one who sees that all of you are irrational.
    You've so far found two "special exceptions" to the general advancement rules - Cosmic Descryer and True Dragons. That's hardly "half the game."
    Last edited by Psyren; 2019-05-21 at 05:00 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)

  30. - Top - End - #150
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2012

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by RoboEmperor View Post
    First, templated creatures and advanced creatures are two entirely different things. Advanced creatures are built into their monster stat block so they exist if the monster exists. Advancement is how physically strong a creature can get. Templates on the other hand, doesn't say anything. There is no guarantee other than the sample creature that templated creatures exist.
    The Paragon Creature template exists. Creatures with the Paragon Creature template also exist. If they exist (and there is an example of a non-unique generic Paragon Creature Mind Flayer in the ELH), then you can eschew or ignore the need for a piece of the creature, according do every you have written thus far. Backing away now is abusrd.
    Last edited by redking; 2019-05-21 at 05:16 PM.

Posting Permissions

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