Question about simulacrum

[Crake]

I doubt Crake here has changed his mind about Simulacra and gate as well.

I mean, to be fair, I have no problem with creating simulacra or gating in advanced creatures if you have a piece of them/can call them by name, but you don't just get to whip them up out of thin air.

At best, even in a hypothetical world in which I agreed that simulacrum could be used without a material component, you still need an original to be duplicating. You can't just say "I wanna duplicate an advanced pit fiend", you have to specify "I want to duplicate Kralazyxth the fifteenth duke of the 3rd layer of hell" and in this case, Kralazyxth just happens to be an advanced pit fiend.

Anything you have yet to encounter in some form, whether it be reading it in a book, hearing it from an NPC, or meeting it in person, if you haven't actually encountered it in some way, then you as a player have no right to demand it's existence in a game. A DM doesn't even need to include the existence of every monster in every monster manual ever either. For example, I have no gith or slaad in my setting, because I don't have limbo or an astral plane.

[Mrark]

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.

Thanks!!!!

[redking]

I mean, to be fair, I have no problem with creating simulacra or gating in advanced creatures if you have a piece of them/can call them by name, but you don't just get to whip them up out of thin air.

I have no problem with it either. I expect there will be quite a trade in arcane circles for bits of advanced creatures, and the cost won't be under 1gp. And a Cosmic Descryer can call a 36 HD Pit Fiend by RAW and RAI - but then the character doing it would have to be well over 30th level.

If you can eschew or ignore material components to cast simulacrum without the bit of the creature, then a 36 HD Paragon Creature Solar is on the table. Even Robo seemed to back down from that, which is an indication that he realizes how absurd his postion is.

[Psyren]

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.

"for your players."

Players have players? News to me.

Jesus Christ.

Amen!

I mean, to be fair, I have no problem with creating simulacra or gating in advanced creatures if you have a piece of them/can call them by name, but you don't just get to whip them up out of thin air.

At best, even in a hypothetical world in which I agreed that simulacrum could be used without a material component, you still need an original to be duplicating. You can't just say "I wanna duplicate an advanced pit fiend", you have to specify "I want to duplicate Kralazyxth the fifteenth duke of the 3rd layer of hell" and in this case, Kralazyxth just happens to be an advanced pit fiend.

I'm totally fine with this too, for the record.

[sorcererlover]

"for your players."

Players have players? News to me.

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.



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.

Ten characters

[gogogome]

I mean, to be fair, I have no problem with creating simulacra or gating in advanced creatures if you have a piece of them/can call them by name, but you don't just get to whip them up out of thin air.

At best, even in a hypothetical world in which I agreed that simulacrum could be used without a material component, you still need an original to be duplicating. You can't just say "I wanna duplicate an advanced pit fiend", you have to specify "I want to duplicate Kralazyxth the fifteenth duke of the 3rd layer of hell" and in this case, Kralazyxth just happens to be an advanced pit fiend.

Anything you have yet to encounter in some form, whether it be reading it in a book, hearing it from an NPC, or meeting it in person, if you haven't actually encountered it in some way, then you as a player have no right to demand it's existence in a game. A DM doesn't even need to include the existence of every monster in every monster manual ever either. For example, I have no gith or slaad in my setting, because I don't have limbo or an astral plane.

No one is telling you how to run your game. As Psyren accurately pointed out earlier the result of an internet discussion doesn't matter at a real table. If you don't like something it's well within your right to ban it or house rule it. But that doesn't change how the rules work.

For example, i've met a few people who don't allow retraining rules in PHBII because it doesn't make sense to them that people can forget what they've learned. Do they have to include retraining rules in their game? No. Should a player point out that by RAW retraining is no different than switching majors in college and try to force his DM to use something he doesn't want? Definitely No. But this does not change the fact that d&d 3.5 has retraining rules and if you follow them as is players can switch school specialization every single level.

Same thing here. Are any of us forcing you to include gith or slaad in your setting? No. Are any of us forcing you to include advanced creatures in your setting? Also no. Are any of us forcing you to let players ignore simulacrum's material component? Also no and there's nothing wrong with putting your foot down as DM and saying you can't ignore the material component because it unbalances your game. But ruled as written players can ignore the material components of simulacrum and create advanced creatures without needing to gate one in beforehand and what you do in your game and your rights as a DM has no impact on how the rules function.

I was under the impression we were having a ruled as written discussion because that's what this forum does. We only talk about how things work ruled as written here. If you're using the d&d 3.5 rule set as a tool for your own custom world then none of this matters. Nothing on the forums matter. Hell not even the books or the rules themselves matter. That's why it's called homebrew. But if you're sticking as close to the official setting as possible, ruled as written both you and Psyren are completely wrong about everything in this thread, and your right as a DM to ban or house rule things has no relevance.

[sorcererlover]

No one is telling you how to run your game. As Psyren accurately pointed out earlier the result of an internet discussion doesn't matter at a real table. If you don't like something it's well within your right to ban it or house rule it. But that doesn't change how the rules work.

For example, i've met a few people who don't allow retraining rules in PHBII because it doesn't make sense to them that people can forget what they've learned. Do they have to include retraining rules in their game? No. Should a player point out that by RAW retraining is no different than switching majors in college and try to force his DM to use something he doesn't want? Definitely No. But this does not change the fact that d&d 3.5 has retraining rules and if you follow them as is players can switch school specialization every single level.

Same thing here. Are any of us forcing you to include gith or slaad in your setting? No. Are any of us forcing you to include advanced creatures in your setting? Also no. Are any of us forcing you to let players ignore simulacrum's material component? Also no and there's nothing wrong with putting your foot down as DM and saying you can't ignore the material component because it unbalances your game. But ruled as written players can ignore the material components of simulacrum and create advanced creatures without needing to gate one in beforehand and what you do in your game and your rights as a DM has no impact on how the rules function.

I was under the impression we were having a ruled as written discussion because that's what this forum does. We only talk about how things work ruled as written here. If you're using the d&d 3.5 rule set as a tool for your own custom world then none of this matters. Nothing on the forums matter. Hell not even the books or the rules themselves matter. That's why it's called homebrew. But if you're sticking as close to the official setting as possible, ruled as written both you and Psyren are completely wrong about everything in this thread, and your right as a DM to ban or house rule things has no relevance.

Why are we even talking about some homebrew setting? Every single post you and RoboEmperor said had RAW or Ruled as Written written in it. So why do people keep bringing up homebrew?

I was under the impression we were having a ruled as written discussion because that's what this forum does. We only talk about how things work ruled as written here

The reason we talk about RAW on these forums because we need a common base for any discussion to happen. And when we don't this is exactly what happens. People going in circles repeating everything over and over because a couple of people for some reason decide to talk about their own homebrew thing and ignore the RAW that proves them wrong because they decide to exclude that rule or house rule differently in their homebrew setting.

In the official core-only setting that is greyhawk all advanced creatures exist and they are generic non-unique and available for simulacrum should the player find a way to ignore the material component, and by extension all advanced creatures are up for grabs with Polymorph spells and Gate. Pick any page of this thread for proof. Everything has repeated over and over and over again.

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.

No one is dictating anything to a DM. So why do you keep acting like RoboEmperor is a munchkin rule lawyer telling DMs how to run their game like a problem player when we're having a scholarly debate about RAW on the internet? You're intentionally trying to portray him like a bad guy here when he's done nothing except dig up archaic RAW that we'd never have known if it weren't for him. Or are you his DM and you two are having a RAW debate about your table here?