Results 121 to 150 of 187
Thread: Question about simulacrum
-
2019-05-20, 12:52 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
-
2019-05-20, 12:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Question about simulacrum
Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)
-
2019-05-20, 01:08 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
Re: Question about simulacrum
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.
-
2019-05-20, 01:18 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
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.
-
2019-05-20, 01:23 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Question about simulacrum
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.
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.Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)
-
2019-05-20, 01:33 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
Re: Question about simulacrum
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.
-
2019-05-20, 01:41 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
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.
-
2019-05-20, 02:09 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
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.
-
2019-05-20, 04:09 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Question about simulacrum
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.Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)
-
2019-05-20, 04:44 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
Re: Question about simulacrum
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.
-
2019-05-20, 10:44 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2013
- Location
- Collegeville, PA
- Gender
Re: Question about simulacrum
...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: ContestsVC I: Lord Commander Conrad Vayne, 1st place
VC II: Lorna, the Mother's Wrath, 5th place
VC XV: Tosk, Kursak the Marauder, Vierna Zalyl; 1st place, 6th/7th place
Kitchen Crashers Protocol for Peace
-
2019-05-20, 11:45 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Question about simulacrum
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.
Player characters do, as an award from the DM, yes.
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.Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)
-
2019-05-21, 12:14 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2011
Re: Question about simulacrum
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.
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
-
2019-05-21, 12:33 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
Re: Question about simulacrum
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
2019-05-21, 01:05 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2012
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.
-
2019-05-21, 01:28 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2011
Re: Question about simulacrum
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.
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
-
2019-05-21, 01:45 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
Re: Question about simulacrum
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.
-
2019-05-21, 02:08 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2011
Re: Question about simulacrum
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.
Except that was RoboEmperor.
That was also RoboEmperor. And another thread. Something something external baggage.
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
-
2019-05-21, 02:21 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
-
2019-05-21, 02:24 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2011
Re: Question about simulacrum
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
-
2019-05-21, 02:26 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
-
2019-05-21, 02:36 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2011
Re: Question about simulacrum
World of Madius wiki - My personal campaign setting, including my homebrew Optional Gestalt/LA rules.
The new Quick Vestige List
-
2019-05-21, 02:46 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
Re: Question about simulacrum
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.
-
2019-05-21, 05:55 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2012
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?
-
2019-05-21, 06:48 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2006
Re: Question about simulacrum
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.
-
2019-05-21, 08:08 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2012
Re: Question about simulacrum
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.
-
2019-05-21, 09:20 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Question about simulacrum
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.
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.
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.
Precisely - this is just eminently rational from where I'm sitting.Last edited by Psyren; 2019-05-21 at 09:21 AM.
Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)
-
2019-05-21, 12:34 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2014
Re: Question about simulacrum
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.
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.
-
2019-05-21, 04:58 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Question about simulacrum
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.
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.
"Why are you complaining, this isn't as broken as Epic!" is not really persuasive.
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.
Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)
-
2019-05-21, 05:13 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2012
Re: Question about simulacrum
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.