Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 151 to 180 of 187
  1. - Top - End - #151
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Oct 2007

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    I think there's as much evidence of templated creatures existing as advanced ones. Summon Monster has them right there, no epic PrC required, as do the example creatures for each template.

    I think the only argument to be made for "a Pit Fiend with 36 HD always exists, a Paragon Pseudonatural Half-Dragon etc Pit Fiend doesn't" is that the latter sounds far dumber than the former. But if you're in the realm of what makes sense, then you're outside the RAW-only zone already, and at that point it's up to the GM what creatures exist and don't.

    That said, if this came up when I was running, I would say that in most cases advanced versions of a creature do exist, more so the more common the creature is. It's not that implausible, it's just not something you can guaranteed rely on.
    Last edited by icefractal; 2019-05-21 at 05:28 PM.

  2. - Top - End - #152
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2012

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by icefractal View Post
    I think there's as much evidence of templated creatures existing as advanced ones. Summon Monster has them right there, no epic PrC required, as do the example creatures for each template.

    I think the only argument to be made for "a Pit Fiend with 36 HD always exists, a Paragon Pseudonatural Half-Dragon etc Pit Fiend doesn't" is that the latter sounds far dumber than the former. But if you're in the realm of what makes sense, then you're outside the RAW-only zone already, and at that point it's up to the GM what creatures exist and don't.
    At this point the real question is why casters even bother creating simulacrum mooks of real people rather than templated or advanced creatures. Perhaps if they wanted to replace the mayor, and that's it. How about an epic pseudonatural creature troll? Let's have ten of those and storm the enemy castle. Oh wait. The enemy has them too.

  3. - Top - End - #153
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Oct 2007

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by redking View Post
    At this point the real question is why casters even bother creating simulacrum mooks of real people rather than templated or advanced creatures. Perhaps if they wanted to replace the mayor, and that's it. How about an epic pseudonatural creature troll? Let's have ten of those and storm the enemy castle. Oh wait. The enemy has them too.
    See that's why I like the "you have to know a specific one" way of doing it. Why do mages go to great effort growing Eldritch abominations they can't control, that would be as much a danger to themselves as anyone else if ever released? So that they can make obedient Simulacra of them.

  4. - Top - End - #154

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    You've so far found two "special exceptions" to the general advancement rules - Cosmic Descryer and True Dragons. That's hardly "half the game."
    And Dwarven Ancestors. And Voors. And every single craftable construct whose advancement price is given. And every creature that has an advanced form explicitly listed for it because if a base form and an advanced form exists, why wouldn't every single advanced form in between the two exist? And if all of these advanced creatures exist, why wouldn't the rest of the creatures in its advancement entry also exist?

    And here's another example: Juvenile and Mature Nabssu. They don't advance by age. They don't advance by xp. They advance solely by eating humanoids. So now we have a new rule: all advanced creatures who advance by eating humanoids are also included in the baseline.

    So then we go back to: where does it say "all advanced creatures whose advancement method is specifically noted is included in the baseline while those who have not are not"? and I go back to screaming for a rule citation.

    Just to be absolutely clear my stance is:
    1. The advancement entry in the creature is non-optional RAW
    2. There are far too many examples of advanced creatures being used in d&d or where d&d just assumes the advanced versions exist
    3. The rules don't differentiate between one advanced creature and another
    4. So there is no differentiation.
    5. Therefore, because a ton of advanced creatures exist and the rules don't differentiate between them depending on how they advance, all advanced creatures exist

    If there is no rule forbidding something, then you can only do it if
    a. there is a rule explicitly allowing it. Or
    b. there is an official example doing it.

    Advanced creatures is a solid b.

    So if you want me to concede show me a rule that explicitly forbids it or show me a rule that explicitly allows only a select few creatures because I have a ton of official examples. And creatures giving the method for its advancement is NOT a rule that says only creatures who have a given method of advancement can advance because there is a lot of creatures with basic and advanced forms that do not give a method of advancement.

    Quote Originally Posted by icefractal View Post
    I think there's as much evidence of templated creatures existing as advanced ones. Summon Monster has them right there, no epic PrC required, as do the example creatures for each template.
    Very valid point. There are far too many fiendish and celestial creatures in summon monster. But how about a double templated creature? Are there any official double templated creatures (just curious)? Anyways, this is a can of worms I will not be dealing with at this time.
    Last edited by RoboEmperor; 2019-05-21 at 08:28 PM.

  5. - Top - End - #155
    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
    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.
    You are splitting hairs and ignoring an obvious implication in the text in order to accuse the spell of being more vague than it actually is.

    "Special abilities appropriate to it's new level or HD" is quite clearly referring to class features you would lose if your level were suddenly halved, as well as abilities that creatures that gain additional abilities as they advance through racial hit dice, such as dragons.

    Attempting to speculate about the nature of special abilities and rank them based on what is and isn't appropriate for given hit dice is entirely outside the scope of the rules and a completely subjective exercise in futility.
    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.

  6. - Top - End - #156
    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
    I go back to screaming for a rule citation.
    I've given you several Here, I'll repeat them:

    Spoiler
    Show
    "Advancement
    This entry provides a measure of how tough the creature can get if you decide to increase its Hit Dice."


    "ADDING HIT DICE
    When you improve a monster by adding Hit Dice, use Table 4–4 to determine the effect on the creature’s CR."


    "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."

    And here's one more for good measure:

    "When you add higher ability scores, class levels, more Hit Dice, or a template to a monster, you make it a more challenging opponent for your players."

    Quote Originally Posted by RoboEmperor View Post
    2. There are far too many examples of advanced creatures being used in d&d or where d&d just assumes the advanced versions exist.
    MM itself explains this:

    "This book usually describes only the most commonly encountered version of a creature (though some entries for advanced monsters can be found)."

    "Some entries" because some of them do exist baseline. Which ones? The ones with entries. Which ones without entries could you encounter in your world? Ask your DM.

    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Awkward View Post
    You are splitting hairs and ignoring an obvious implication in the text in order to accuse the spell of being more vague than it actually is.

    "Special abilities appropriate to it's new level or HD" is quite clearly referring to class features you would lose if your level were suddenly halved, as well as abilities that creatures that gain additional abilities as they advance through racial hit dice, such as dragons.

    Attempting to speculate about the nature of special abilities and rank them based on what is and isn't appropriate for given hit dice is entirely outside the scope of the rules and a completely subjective exercise in futility.
    It's not that the spell is vague, it's that it requires you to exercise judgement. When planar binding refers to "unreasonable commands" that rule requires subjectivity and judgement from the DM. When dominate person refers to "actions against its nature," that is also a call for DM subjectivity and judgement. Wish's "greater effects" require interpretation too. Simulacrum's "appropriate special abilities" are no different; the most powerful spells often contain clauses like these.

    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)

  7. - Top - End - #157

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    I've given you several Here, I'll repeat them:

    Spoiler
    Show
    "Advancement
    This entry provides a measure of how tough the creature can get if you decide to increase its Hit Dice."


    "ADDING HIT DICE
    When you improve a monster by adding Hit Dice, use Table 4–4 to determine the effect on the creature’s CR."


    "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."

    And here's one more for good measure:

    "When you add higher ability scores, class levels, more Hit Dice, or a template to a monster, you make it a more challenging opponent for your players."
    And I will repeat what magicalmagicman and gogogome said.

    Spoiler
    Show
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by magicalmagicman View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by gogogome View Post
    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?


    Players can call advanced even if they don't advance the creatures themselves so whether or not the DM gets to advance the creature is irrelevant.

    Example1: GATE
    If I call a 42hd Pyroclastic Dragon (it's extraplanar so I can), does the player choose its feats, or does the DM? The answer is DM. The DM gets to determine the Pyroclastic Dragon's stats. But does this mean that the player can't call an advanced dragon? No. So whether or not the DM gets to advance the creature is irrelevant.

    Example2: Dwarven Ancestor
    The MM entry directly says players can call advanced versions with Planar Ally. Does the player advance the Dwarven Ancestor or does the DM? The answer is DM. The DM gets to determine the advanced Dwarven Ancestor stats. But does this mean the player can't call an advanced Dwarven Ancestor? No. If the DM denies the player advanced Dwarven Ancestors, then he is betraying the RAW and therefore the baseline. Dwarven Ancestors do not have an advanced entry. In any case, whether or not the DM gets to advance the creature is irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    MM itself explains this:

    "This book usually describes only the most commonly encountered version of a creature (though some entries for advanced monsters can be found)."

    "Some entries" because some of them do exist baseline. Which ones? The ones with entries. Which ones without entries could you encounter in your world? Ask your DM.
    That quote isn't saying what you think it's saying. In fact it helps me not you.
    1. It's saying that most of the time the MM stat block gives the stats of the most commonly encountered variety but sometimes will also give you stats of the uncommonly encountered variety. This quote is saying advanced creature = uncommon.
    2. Commonly cannot exist without uncommonly also existing. So that quote proves all the advanced versions of the creature exists.
    Uncommonly does not mean "doesn't exist unless explicitly said so"
    Commonly does not mean exclusive.
    3. Dwarven Ancestor and creatures summoned by Cosmic Descryer are clear examples of advanced versions existing without an advanced monster entry.

    Am I being unreasonable when I say that the base creature refers to the most commonly encountered variety and the advanced creatures are the uncommonly encountered but definitely exists variety?
    Last edited by RoboEmperor; 2019-05-21 at 10:11 PM.

  8. - Top - End - #158
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2012

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by RoboEmperor View Post
    1. it says most commonly encountered. Which means uncommonly encountered also exists. Which ones are uncommonly encountered? The advanced versions.
    Excuse you? I gave an example of where you might call a succubus and instead of that succubus having the dodge feat, it has point blank shot feat. Which you said was impossible lol.

  9. - Top - End - #159
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Crake's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by RoboEmperor View Post
    Example1: GATE
    If I call a 42hd Pyroclastic Dragon (it's extraplanar so I can), does the player choose its feats, or does the DM? The answer is DM. The DM gets to determine the Pyroclastic Dragon's stats. But does this mean that the player can't call an advanced dragon? No. So whether or not the DM gets to advance the creature is irrelevant.
    Both gate and planar binding use the same language "By naming a particular being or kind of being as you cast the spell". "42HD pyroclastic dragon" is not a "kind" of being. "Pyroclastic dragon" is. So you cannot choose to call a 42HD one, unless you're already aware of the existence of one that you've met before, or read about in some book, and know his/her name so you can call that one specifically.

    Quote Originally Posted by RoboEmperor View Post
    Example2: Dwarven Ancestor
    The MM entry directly says players can call advanced versions with Planar Ally. Does the player advance the Dwarven Ancestor or does the DM? The answer is DM. The DM gets to determine the advanced Dwarven Ancestor stats. But does this mean the player can't call an advanced Dwarven Ancestor? No. If the DM denies the player advanced Dwarven Ancestors, then he is betraying the RAW and therefore the baseline. Dwarven Ancestors do not have an advanced entry. In any case, whether or not the DM gets to advance the creature is irrelevant.
    Incorrect-o my friend-o. I have already addressed this point I think on the last page, but I'll paste it again now for simplicity.

    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.
    When it comes down to it, whether or not advanced creatures "are baseline", whatever that means, it's irrelevant to any of the spells noted so far. Planar ally gives the player literally no control over what's summoned, planar binding and gate both specify a named individual or a kind of creature, which means you could actually randomly get an advanced version (within the HD limits of the spell you're casting), or even one with non-baseline stats/feats, even when you didn't mean to, and as I said a page or so ago, this logic actually extends to summoning creatures as well, but most DMs don't want to customize each and every summon, so for expediency they just default to the standard. And, of course, simulacrum's limiting factor is needing the piece of the creature to be duplicated, you need to have physical proof that such a creature actually exists, you can't just enter into the realm what-ifs with your DM, and say "Well, this COULD exist, thus you have to give it to me".

    Personally, the scroll in expedition to ruins of castle greyhawk, which is just about as 1st party as you can get for a module (and on equal footing with expedition to the demonweb pits with the mirror mephit, which I would still argue needs a piece of the creature to be duplicated), and the brachina needing a gem to use it's trap the soul SLA is about as much precedence as I need to convince me quite strongly that I'm right, that some spells are so reliant on their components that they simply cannot function without them, but I'll happily continue discussing, maybe someone will convince me otherwise.
    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 - #160

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by Crake View Post
    Both gate and planar binding use the same language "By naming a particular being or kind of being as you cast the spell". "42HD pyroclastic dragon" is not a "kind" of being. "Pyroclastic dragon" is. So you cannot choose to call a 42HD one, unless you're already aware of the existence of one that you've met before, or read about in some book, and know his/her name so you can call that one specifically.
    Great Wyrm isn't a kind of dragon? Because that's what a 42hd Pyroclastic dragon is, a Great Wyrm. Are you saying I can't call a Great Wyrm?

    Quote Originally Posted by Crake View Post
    Incorrect-o my friend-o. I have already addressed this point I think on the last page, but I'll paste it again now for simplicity.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crake View Post
    When it comes down to it, whether or not advanced creatures "are baseline", whatever that means, it's irrelevant to any of the spells noted so far. Planar ally gives the player literally no control over what's summoned, planar binding and gate both specify a named individual or a kind of creature, which means you could actually randomly get an advanced version (within the HD limits of the spell you're casting), or even one with non-baseline stats/feats, even when you didn't mean to, and as I said a page or so ago, this logic actually extends to summoning creatures as well, but most DMs don't want to customize each and every summon, so for expediency they just default to the standard.
    Quote Originally Posted by Crake View Post
    And, of course, simulacrum's limiting factor is needing the piece of the creature to be duplicated, you need to have physical proof that such a creature actually exists, you can't just enter into the realm what-ifs with your DM, and say "Well, this COULD exist, thus you have to give it to me".
    One thing at a time. Right now I'm focusing on proving that Advanced Creatures (aka uncommonly encountered creatures) exist unless house ruled that they don't.

    If this is proven then advanced creatures physically exist and they are non-unique (just like greater stone golems are nonunique, or great wyrms are nonunique, or Dreadful Lasher (voor) is nonunique) which will prove that these creatures physically exist or have existed therefore I can make simulacra of them unless house ruled otherwise.

    If Great Wyrm Dragon is a "kind" of creature, no reason all other advanced versions aren't also "kind" of creature.
    Check out Voor from MMIV. It has an advanced version: Dreadful Lasher. The Dreadful Lasher is simply an advanced Voor, nothing more. So if this advanced Voor is a "kind" of creature, why isn't the other unstatted unnamed advanced versions of Voors also "kinds" of creatures?

    Quote Originally Posted by Crake View Post
    Personally, the scroll in expedition to ruins of castle greyhawk, which is just about as 1st party as you can get for a module (and on equal footing with expedition to the demonweb pits with the mirror mephit, which I would still argue needs a piece of the creature to be duplicated), and the brachina needing a gem to use it's trap the soul SLA is about as much precedence as I need to convince me quite strongly that I'm right, that some spells are so reliant on their components that they simply cannot function without them, but I'll happily continue discussing, maybe someone will convince me otherwise.
    I think magicalmagicman discussed all the possible points there are. If you want to contest his points I'd be happy to discuss them. His points were
    1. Mirror Mephit didn't need a piece of creature to create a simulacrum of the PC to make trouble in his name. He created the Simulacrum while residing in the plane of mirrors, an entire plane of existence away from the PC. There was no way the mirror mephit could've gotten a piece of the PC. And there is no snow in the Plane of Mirrors. And if anything I believe the snow is the more essential material component because the spell actually references the snow as the body of the simulacrum. So if that's ignorable then so is the piece of creature.
    2. Exact wording of Eschew Materials is "without needing the component". So if you have Eschew Materials, you can create any spell effect without needing its material component. So you can create Simulacra of a creature without needing a piece of it.
    3. You're being "arbitrary and unfair" when you say every single spell other than simulacrum has its effect determined by the caster, but not simulacrum, who has to have its effect determined by its material component when the piece of creature is as involved in the spell as bat guano is for fireball. If you are right about Trap the Soul, you are still wrong that it applies here because the spell does not reference the material component even once.
    Last edited by RoboEmperor; 2019-05-21 at 10:25 PM.

  11. - Top - End - #161
    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
    It's not that the spell is vague, it's that it requires you to exercise judgement. When planar binding refers to "unreasonable commands" that rule requires subjectivity and judgement from the DM. When dominate person refers to "actions against its nature," that is also a call for DM subjectivity and judgement. Wish's "greater effects" require interpretation too. Simulacrum's "appropriate special abilities" are no different; the most powerful spells often contain clauses like these.
    "Unreasonable commands" is subjective only to what the specific creature being commanded would find unreasonable. There are no judgement calls there at all from the standpoint of the rules as written, just with regards to whatever personality the DM assigned to his creature. Same thing for Dominate. There are no rules for that because it's entirely a story decision.

    Wishes effects are so specifically spelled out that there is essentially nothing you can wish for that isn't either a greater or lesser version of something on the list. Consider how many real-life wishes a person might want that can be boiled down to duplicating a spell that has the same or similar effect. In all cases such "greater effects" are a very common sense ruling, and often irrelevant since it's an open invitation to pervert the intention into whatever result you find most amusing.

    Simulacrum is the same. "appropriate special abilities" are anything that would definitively change with less class levels or hit dice than the target creature currently possesses. Such things are the blatantly obvious (class features) or things that are clearly spelled out in the monster's entry. There is no comparison here between planar binding and dominate. A monster's statistics are not reflected by his personality and backstory. They are reflected in its entry in the Monster Manual.
    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 - #162
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Crake's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by RoboEmperor View Post
    Great Wyrm isn't a kind of dragon? Because that's what a 42hd Pyroclastic dragon is, a Great Wyrm. Are you saying I can't call a Great Wyrm?
    I would argue no, a great wyrm pyroclastic dragon isn't a kind of creature. Pyroclastic dragon is. That would be like saying "I want a 600 year old succubus".
    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.

  13. - Top - End - #163

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by Crake View Post
    I would argue no, a great wyrm pyroclastic dragon isn't a kind of creature. Pyroclastic dragon is. That would be like saying "I want a 600 year old succubus".
    How about a "Pyroclastic Great Wyrm"? That sounds like a kind of creature. If no then this is where we agree to disagree. Great Wyrms have their own stat block so I disagree.

    How about my Dreadful Lasher example? A Voor advanced to 15hd is its own "kind" of creature. So why wouldn't a Voor advanced to 14hd or 16hd also be a "kind" of creature? Because WotC didn't create a statblock for it and didn't give it a unique name? That's a dumb reason and I won't accept it.
    Last edited by RoboEmperor; 2019-05-22 at 12:19 AM.

  14. - Top - End - #164
    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
    Am I being unreasonable when I say that the base creature refers to the most commonly encountered variety and the advanced creatures are the uncommonly encountered but definitely exists variety?
    If you are dictating to a DM which variant/improved versions of monsters "definitely exist" in their setting because of an epic PrC and a handful of exceptions, then yes, I do think that is unreasonable. The DM owns the advancement rules by default, as the rules I've quoted show.

    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Awkward View Post
    Simulacrum is the same. "appropriate special abilities" are anything that would definitively change with less class levels or hit dice than the target creature currently possesses. Such things are the blatantly obvious (class features) or things that are clearly spelled out in the monster's entry. There is no comparison here between planar binding and dominate. A monster's statistics are not reflected by his personality and backstory. They are reflected in its entry in the Monster Manual.
    So you'd rule that a 9HD pit fiend has all its SLAs, including the ability to grant wishes - is that right?
    Last edited by Psyren; 2019-05-22 at 12:25 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)

  15. - Top - End - #165

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    If you are dictating to a DM which variant/improved versions of monsters "definitely exist" in their setting because of an epic PrC and a handful of exceptions, then yes, I do think that is unreasonable. The DM owns the advancement rules by default, as the rules I've quoted show.
    A person shoving rules in the DMs face to get his munchkin shtick is unreasonable. If the DM says his setting is not standard d&d then it's not default or baseline and we're not talking about d&d anymore. We're talking about a homebrew setting.

    The DM owning the advancement rules by default is irrelevant as I've shown. If I want to call an advanced creature, the DM has to give it to me unless he decides to deviate from the default and house rule that such creatures don't exist.

    Default:Exists. Why is it so hard for you to admit this? In an official setting with no DM modifications, advanced creatures exist by default.
    Last edited by RoboEmperor; 2019-05-22 at 12:39 AM.

  16. - Top - End - #166
    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
    The DM owning the advancement rules by default is irrelevant as I've shown. If I want to call an advanced creature, the DM has to give it to me unless he decides to deviate from the default and house rule that such creatures don't exist.
    It's not irrelevant at all. Even for your prime example, the Advanced Dwarven Ancestor, this isn't necessarily true. The exact text saying: "Advanced Ancestors require higher-level versions of the spell." Nothing says you have to get one, only that if you want a chance at one, you need the higher level versions of the spell. Indeed, Planar Ally itself does not guarantee anything about any creature you reach out for.

    So at this point, probably best that we agree to disagree, not play at each others' tables etc.

    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)

  17. - Top - End - #167

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    It's not irrelevant at all. Even for your prime example, the Advanced Dwarven Ancestor, this isn't necessarily true. The exact text saying: "Advanced Ancestors require higher-level versions of the spell." Nothing says you have to get one, only that if you want a chance at one, you need the higher level versions of the spell. Indeed, Planar Ally itself does not guarantee anything about any creature you reach out for.

    So at this point, probably best that we agree to disagree, not play at each others' tables etc.
    How about my Pyroclastic Great Wyrm example?

  18. - Top - End - #168
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    If you are dictating to a DM which variant/improved versions of monsters "definitely exist" in their setting because of an epic PrC and a handful of exceptions, then yes, I do think that is unreasonable. The DM owns the advancement rules by default, as the rules I've quoted show.
    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    So at this point, probably best that we agree to disagree, not play at each others' tables etc.
    Someone's getting desperate. There's now an official quote that says advanced creatures are uncommon but definitely exists and he ignores it all. Again. And calls a mountain of exceptions a "handful", and I'd like to ask you, exception to what?

    Look, this guy will die before he admits he's wrong so just drop it. Don't agree to disagree though. There's nothing to disagree. You got him dead to rights.

  19. - Top - End - #169
    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
    There's now an official quote that says advanced creatures are uncommon but definitely exists
    "If you decide to increase its Hit Dice" = "definitely exists". Uh-huh.

    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)

  20. - Top - End - #170
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    "If you decide to increase its Hit Dice" = "definitely exists". Uh-huh.
    You = player or DM. That section is not exclusive to DM. I can create a homunculus and choose to increase its hit dice as a player.

    Does the DM get to choose to increase its hit dice when the player gates in a Pyroclastic Great Wyrm? Does the DM get to choose to increase its hit dice when the player summons a creature with advanced hit dice?

    He does if he house rules.

    Jesus Christ.

  21. - Top - End - #171
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by sorcererlover View Post
    You got him dead to rights.
    Pretty much. I've been saying for pages now that advancement entry of the stat block is not a variant rule. It is the game telling you that uncommon creatures of these hit dice exist. And that quote Psyren gave proves it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    "If you decide to increase its Hit Dice" = "definitely exists". Uh-huh.
    This is not saying whether you get to decide if these creatures exist or not. This is saying if you want to use the uncommon variants or not. We've firmly established that all advanced creatures exist.

    The MM and DMG assumes the reader is the DM. That doesn't mean the Player can't use the rules. All magic items are in the DMG. Does that mean players cannot use item creation feats to craft them? And the item creation rules are also in the DMG.

    The foundation of your position is perhaps the most irrational reasoning I've ever experienced on these forums. Your entire position is that one sentence where it says the DM or player can increase a monster's hit dice and we've repeatedly shown you that even if you are correct it is irrelevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by RoboEmperor View Post
    The opinion of a person who ignores multiple posters' endlessly repeating posts, keeps repeating that a rule used by both players and DMs alike is exclusive to DMs, and endlessly ignores all RAW with the reason: a no-name DM controls everything in a homebrewed setting, shouldn't really matter I guess. Oh and he labels a mountain of evidence as "special cases" and ignores all of them.

    I'm gonna learn from this experience and not respond to anyone who talks about a DM's god status in a homebrewed setting in a RAW official d&d discussion.
    He has shown a good deal of bias in this thread that he does not like simulacra of advanced creatures and it's pretty much a law of nature that people who are biased can never be persuaded otherwise especially by an internet discussion.

    I doubt Crake here has changed his mind about Simulacra and gate as well.
    Last edited by gogogome; 2019-05-22 at 01:58 AM.

  22. - Top - End - #172
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    It's not irrelevant at all. Even for your prime example, the Advanced Dwarven Ancestor, this isn't necessarily true. The exact text saying: "Advanced Ancestors require higher-level versions of the spell." Nothing says you have to get one, only that if you want a chance at one, you need the higher level versions of the spell. Indeed, Planar Ally itself does not guarantee anything about any creature you reach out for.

    So at this point, probably best that we agree to disagree, not play at each others' tables etc.
    Look at that. He ignored this for a really, really long time and then just repeats what Crake said without saying anything about planar binding. And now he's ignoring the dragon example because he doesn't know how to refute it.

  23. - Top - End - #173
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Schwäbisch Hall
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Here you are. What I simply recalculated is marked in blue. Some changes to special abilities are marked red instead - it means I had to use some DM judgement to make a decision. Spell-like abilities are removed or tuned down based on the new caster level. Other abilities are tuned down in order to fit lower CR devils.

    PIT FIEND
    Large Outsider (Baatezu, Evil, Extraplanar, Lawful)
    Hit Dice: 9d8+72 (112 hp)
    Initiative: +12
    Speed: 40 ft. (8 squares), fly 60 ft. (average)
    AC: 40 (–1 size, +8 Dex, +23 natural) touch 17, flat-footed 32
    Base Attack/Grapple: +9/+26
    Attack: Claw +21 melee (2d8+13)
    Full Attack: 2 claws +21 melee (2d8+13) and 2 wings +19 melee (2d6+6) and bite +19 melee (4d6+6 plus poison plus disease) and tail slap +19 melee (2d8+6)
    Space/Reach: 10 ft./10 ft.
    Special Attacks: Constrict 2d8+26, fear aura, improved grab, spell-like abilities, summon baatezu
    Special Qualities: Damage reduction 10/good or silver, darkvision 60 ft., immunity to fire and poison, resistance to acid 10 and cold 10, regeneration 5, see in darkness, spell resistance 23, telepathy 100 ft.
    Saves: Fort +14, Ref +14, Will +14
    Abilities: Str 37, Dex 27, Con 27, Int 26, Wis 26, Cha 26
    Skills: Balance +10, Bluff +20, Climb +25, Concentration +20, Diplomacy +10, Disguise +20 (+22 acting), Hide +16, Intimidate +22, Jump +31, Knowledge (arcana) +20, Knowledge (nature) +10, Knowledge (the planes) +20, Knowledge (religion) +20, Listen +20, Move silently +20, Search +20, Spellcraft +22, Spot +20, Survival +8 (+10 on other planes, +10 when tracking), Tumble +22.
    Feats: Cleave, Great Cleave, Improved Initiative, Iron Will, Multiattack, Power Attack, Quicken Spell-Like Ability (fireball)
    Alignment: Always lawful evil

    Constrict (Ex): A pit fiend deals 2d8+26 points of damage with a successful grapple check.
    Disease (Su): A creature struck by a pit fiend’s bite attack must succeed on a DC 22 Fortitude save or be infected with a vile disease known as devil chills (incubation period 1d4 days, damage 1d4 Str). The save DC is Constitution-based.
    Fear Aura (Su): A pit fiend can radiate a 20-foot-radius fear aura as a free action. A creature in the area must succeed on a DC 22 Will save or be affected as though by a fear spell (caster level 18th). A creature that successfully saves cannot be affected again by the same pit fiend’s aura for 24 hours. Other baatezu are immune to the aura. The save DC is Charisma-based.
    Improved Grab (Ex): To use this ability, a pit fiend must hit with its tail slap attack. It can then attempt to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity. If it wins the grapple check, it establishes a hold and can constrict.
    Poison (Ex): Injury, Fortitude DC 22, initial damage 1d6 Con, secondary damage death. The save DC is Constitution-based.
    Spell-Like Abilities: At will—blasphemy (DC 25), create undead, fireball (DC 21), greater dispel magic, greater teleport (self plus 50 pounds of objects only), invisibility, magic circle against good, mass hold monster (DC 23), persistent image (DC 23), power word stun, unholy aura (DC 26); 1/day—meteor swarm (DC 27). Caster level 9th. The save DCs are Charisma-based.
    Once per year a pit fiend can use limited wish as the spell (caster level 13th).
    Summon Baatezu (Sp): Twice per day a pit fiend can automatically summon 2 lemures, bone devils, or bearded devils, or 1 erinyes, horned devil, or ice devil. This ability is the equivalent of an 8th-level spell.
    Regeneration (Ex): A pit fiend takes normal damage from good-aligned weapons, silvered weapons, and from spells or effects with the good descriptor.
    Last edited by Kaleph; 2019-05-22 at 03:34 AM.

  24. - Top - End - #174
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    France
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    I have a feeling that some people play at the same table with poorly justified TO going on, and whenever one of them fails to make a point on GitP, the rest of the team just gangs up and supports whatever nonsense needs help.

    That would explain why the same people have been involved in every unpleasant debate that has popped up over the last few weeks. Anyone else have a possible explanation?
    Have a look at my complete list of wizard spells, last updated 07/08/2015.

  25. - Top - End - #175
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Schwäbisch Hall
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by Pippin View Post
    I have a feeling that some people play at the same table with poorly justified TO going on, and whenever one of them fails to make a point on GitP, the rest of the team just gangs up and supports whatever nonsense needs help.

    That would explain why the same people have been involved in every unpleasant debate that has popped up over the last few weeks. Anyone else have a possible explanation?
    I have the feeling that some people involved do not play at all; they possibly wish to play with that level of poorly justified TO, which brings me to think that they have no real interest in the game as it's designed to be played.

    Also, when they reply to a player's request for help, they have no interest in actually helping at all. And when the OP kindly asks if they can stop derailing his thread, they ignore him on purpose, since it's probably more important for them to go on trying to make their point.

  26. - Top - End - #176
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by Pippin View Post
    I have a feeling that some people play at the same table with poorly justified TO going on, and whenever one of them fails to make a point on GitP, the rest of the team just gangs up and supports whatever nonsense needs help.

    That would explain why the same people have been involved in every unpleasant debate that has popped up over the last few weeks. Anyone else have a possible explanation?
    That's an interesting position coming from someone who believes residual metamagic applies to every spell cast in the following round. Most would call that poorly justified TO. Do you find me unpleasant because I don't agree with your views?

    I don't support anyone I don't agree with. I'm sure you can recollect how I made Robo concede in the thread with Azure Talent and Psycarnum Infusion with an faq entry. You commented yourself that the FAQ should not be used to prove or disprove anything.

    To answer your accusation I have a player who frequents this forum and follows one of RoboEmperor's build. It's called the Sorcerer Master of Animated Objects and he uses simulacrum in that build so I am interested in all topics regarding simulacrum and planar binding which happens to be the topics RoboEmperor engages.

    I did get worked up in this thread. I am ashamed of that. But I was getting frustrated that people were being irrational. RAW is broken, this is fact, so just accept that the rules are broken instead of doing all of these mental gymnastics to try and fix the broken rules with alternate interpretations that don't really fit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaleph View Post
    I have the feeling that some people involved do not play at all; they possibly wish to play with that level of poorly justified TO, which brings me to think that they have no real interest in the game as it's designed to be played.
    Creating Simulacra of advanced creatures hardly enters the level of TO. Ignoring the material component might be but from my experience a player can just Gate in an advanced creature for a hair and the resulting creature is no more powerful than your other minionmancy options such as a Craft Construct, Necromancy, or Planar Binding so I let it fly. A rule I do have is that each player can only have one combat minion at any time and its CR must be equal or lower to the party's average ECL.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaleph View Post
    Also, when they reply to a player's request for help, they have no interest in actually helping at all. And when the OP kindly asks if they can stop derailing his thread, they ignore him on purpose, since it's probably more important for them to go on trying to make their point.
    The OP said the issue was over and that he received a 9hd pit fiend. I don't see how you can derail a thread that already ended.

  27. - Top - End - #177
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    France
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by gogogome View Post
    I don't see how you can derail a thread that already ended.
    Luckily the answer to this question lies in your own post.
    Quote Originally Posted by gogogome View Post
    That's an interesting position coming from someone who believes residual metamagic applies to every spell cast in the following round. Most would call that poorly justified TO.
    Have a look at my complete list of wizard spells, last updated 07/08/2015.

  28. - Top - End - #178
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Schwäbisch Hall
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by gogogome View Post
    The OP said the issue was over and that he received a 9hd pit fiend. I don't see how you can derail a thread that already ended.
    No, the OP said that he was not asking how many HD the simulacrum should have, since in-game he already duplicated a 9HD pit fiend. He said that any discussion regarding 18HD simulacra was useless, since it wouldn't help him. He also clearly stated that he was still waiting for stats for his 9HD pit fiend. And he waited for more than 100 Posts.

    EDIT

    Quote Originally Posted by gogogome View Post
    Creating Simulacra of advanced creatures hardly enters the level of TO. Ignoring the material component might be but from my experience a player can just Gate in an advanced creature for a hair and the resulting creature is no more powerful than your other minionmancy options such as a Craft Construct, Necromancy, or Planar Binding so I let it fly. A rule I do have is that each player can only have one combat minion at any time and its CR must be equal or lower to the party's average ECL.
    That's reasonable. We don't know if this would allow theoretically speaking an 18HD at the OP's table (has he gate? Are they 18 ECL?), but in any case that's not what the OP was asking. And your tone/topic/argumentation in your sentence are much more reasonable than most of the posts in this thread, anyhow. That's not this kind of answers that disappoints me.
    Last edited by Kaleph; 2019-05-22 at 05:09 AM.

  29. - Top - End - #179
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by Pippin View Post
    Luckily the answer to this question lies in your own post.
    You are correct. You have derailed this thread by throwing a baseless accusation my way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaleph View Post
    No, the OP said that he was not asking how many HD the simulacrum should have, since in-game he already duplicated a 9HD pit fiend. He said that any discussion regarding 18HD simulacra was useless, since it wouldn't help him. He also clearly stated that he was still waiting for stats for his 9HD pit fiend. And he waited for more than 100 Posts.
    On second reading of that post it seems you are correct. I suppose I should apologize to the OP for contributing to the derailment.

  30. - Top - End - #180
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Schwäbisch Hall
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Question about simulacrum

    Quote Originally Posted by gogogome View Post
    On second reading of that post it seems you are correct. I suppose I should apologize to the OP for contributing to the derailment.
    I have to apologize, then, for being rude. I'm not the OP or a Mod, after all, so my rant was slightly out of place. No fingerpointing towards a specific commenter was meant, though.

    Still I'm happy that it's solved. I guess we are both fatigued for the rest of the encounter, now :D

Posting Permissions

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