Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)

[Hussar]

So Hussar, you would feel better if we pointed out that a fighter trying to negotiate with a demon for a wish was going to have the same difficulties as a wizard? Consider it pointed out. The point is that the fighter has the option to arrange it, same as the wizard, albeit through different channels; not that the fighter will have an easier time of it.



Firstly, your reading of simulacrum is rather generous. Generally when you do a polymorph or the like, spell like abilities are not granted. The spell text, as I read it mentions nothing about duplicating spell like abilities so I wouldn't allow it. In point of fact, the spell specifically limits powers to Special Abilities appropriate for the HD, which for the Glabrezu would be rend. The creature is an illusion, not the real thing. A DM would be well within the rules to never give a simulacrum the ability to grant wishes (or cast any other spells for that matter; at least without using other spells in the creation, or via DM approval). Besides which, even without the spell text, I know that a 7th level spell should never be used to create a 9th level spell effect ex nihilio, so your understanding of the spell is somewhere flawed.

Well, from the text of the spell:

It appears to be the same as the original, but it has only one-half of the real creature’s levels or Hit Dice (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD).

Since this isn't a polymorph and it does specifically say that it gets the special abilities, you've pretty much reworded the spell.

Secondly, I would rule that a lesser planar binding was a type of summoning, which means that the demon and all its gear disappear from the mortal plane once slain. As well, in many cosmologies, when a demon is "slain" on the mortal plane, its not really dead; just barred from returning to the mortal plane for a period of time.

Again, from the text,

Conjuration (Calling) [see text]

Additionally, if you actually went to the PHB, they specifically state that anything called this way and slain, does not just get barred. It's actually dead. This is why Planar Binding won't allow you to make suicide troops.

Thirdly, such bad faith summoning is not going to make demon lords happy with you.

Yes, because demon lords keep perfect track of the infinite number of demons in the abyss. The Chaotic lords of evil have perfect record keeping that would let them know that I've done this. Sure.

Now, let me hasten to point out that a fighter which pays for a demon to be summoned in the same way is going to have identical problems.

If by problems you mean DM's who will ignore spell text, rework mechanics and then use the setting to beat them about the head and shoulders, then I agree with you.

 

[Wicht]

Since this isn't a polymorph and it does specifically say that it gets the special abilities, you've pretty much reworded the spell.

"Appropriate... special abilities"

Appropriate is completely under the control of each individual DM.

For my part, I would say that spell like abilities are, for the most part, inappropriate barring additional resources or spells. And spells more powerful than the spell you are using to create the creature doubly so. No rewording necessary.

Additionally, if you actually went to the PHB, they specifically state that anything called this way and slain, does not just get barred. It's actually dead. This is why Planar Binding won't allow you to make suicide troops.

You are correct. It is calling. I missed that in my hasty reread this morning. Mea culpa. At the same time, would you argue the demon is powerless to attack a summoner who was attacking it? The spell is a bit quite on summoning with intent to attack the creature.

Yes, because demon lords keep perfect track of the infinite number of demons in the abyss. The Chaotic lords of evil have perfect record keeping that would let them know that I've done this. Sure.

I think word might get out eventually, especially if you made a habit of it.

If by problems you mean DM's who will ignore spell text, rework mechanics and then use the setting to beat them about the head and shoulders, then I agree with you.

I am sure that is what I meant.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

"Appropriate... special abilities"

Appropriate is completely under the control of each individual DM.

For my part, I would say that spell like abilities are, for the most part, inappropriate barring additional resources or spells. And spells more powerful than the spell you are using to create the creature doubly so. No rewording necessary.

Another way of reading the "appropriate" bit has nothing to do with what's appropriate for the campaign and everything to do with appropriating the original abilities of the creature.

 

[Wicht]

Another way of reading the "appropriate" bit has nothing to do with what's appropriate for the campaign and everything to do with appropriating the original abilities of the creature.

Its a broad word. Appropriate for the campaign is a consideration, but not my main one. Appropriate for the balance of the rules is one I think is most fitting (which means a 7th level spell cannot get you gratis a 9th level spell effect). Appropriate for the HD of the creature is a worthy consideration and in line with the former consideration.

However you want to slice the word appropriate, a simulacrum that you made granting you wishes is inappropriate. Its potentially game breaking. Its rule stretching (to say the least). And it violates a basic principle of spell abilities. Why would anyone allow it and think they were complying with the original intent of either the spell or the designers? The wording of the spell in no way demands it and a player that insisted that they should be able to do it by RAW would get a firm "No," from me, and a polite discussion about the limits of spells (you can't use a lower level spell to get a higher level effect.)

 

[Sage Genesis]

"Appropriate... special abilities"

Appropriate is completely under the control of each individual DM.

You're twisting the words of the spell though. The full line is:
"It appears to be the same as the original, but it has only one-half of the real creature’s levels or Hit Dice (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD)."

The word "appropriate" here is not used in the sense of being acceptable or proper, but it's to do with game mechanical elements that flow forth as a function of level/HD. For a 6th level Cleric for example, 3 feats would be the appropriate amount (for most races), 18 skill points (modified for Int and such), and up to 3rd level spells.

... a polite discussion about the limits of spells (you can't use a lower level spell to get a higher level effect.)

Hate to tell you this, but the Summon Monster/Nature's Ally spells can do this pretty well actually.

 

[Wicht]

You're twisting the words of the spell though. The full line is:
"It appears to be the same as the original, but it has only one-half of the real creature’s levels or Hit Dice (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD)."

The word "appropriate" here is not used in the sense of being acceptable or proper, but it's to do with game mechanical elements that flow forth as a function of level/HD. For a 6th level Cleric for example, 3 feats would be the appropriate amount (for most races), 18 skill points (modified for Int and such), and up to 3rd level spells.

I agree thats the primary intent of the wording. But the overall thrust of the wording must also include spell like abilities, and the appropriateness of those for any particular creature is entirely up to the DM. And Wish is still inappropriate.

At the risk of repeating myself too often, you, as a player, simply cannot get a 9th level spell effect from a 7th level spell. Any interpretation that assumes it is possible is a bad interpretation. And any designer that writes a spell like that is doing bad design work. I give the 3e designers enough credence to figure that this was not their intent with simulacrum.

If you must allow your players' simulacrums to possess spell like abilities and spell casting, then they should be limited to spells that are 6th or lower in level (because you are using a 7th level spell to power them), and they should never be spells that are a higher level than a spell caster of similar HD to the simulacrum should be able to cast. Thus a 6 HD Glabrezu simulacrum should be limited to 3rd level spell-like abilities and no more. It would lose the true seeing, the chaos hammer, the confusion, reverse gravity, greater teleport, power word stun, and wish. It would retain Dispel Magic, and mirror image.

I still prefer not to allow spell like abilities, but if you followed those two rules of thumb (6th and lower; spell levels equal to 1/2 HD max) the power level of the spell should remain fairly in check.

 

[N'raac]

While I might not adopt the same line as Wicht, I agree that the spell wording says ""It appears to be the same as the original, but it has only one-half of the real creature’s levels or Hit Dice (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD)."

If the intent were that it retain all of its special abilities, why would they be included with all the other items that are to be carved back to those appropriate to a creature of that level or HD? That they are, rather than the rules saying "and retain all special abilities of the base creature" indicates to me that the intent is that the creature not retain all of its special abilities. It seems reasonable that the most powerful abilities be removed first. For the Solar (who counts as a L20 caster and has numerous magical abilities), his abilities should be carved back to a caster level of 10, and a proportionate number of his spell-like abilities removed. Reasonably, that would include any that could not be cast by a L10 caster, which is what the simulacrum is reduced to.

The vast array of possible creatures prohibits the spell description setting out what each one would retain - instead, it is left to the GM to assess what would be appropriate for any given creature.

 

[Hussar]

Just comparing a couple of statements.

There is no effort on my part, in any of my games, to actively and purposefully "limit" caster power. None. Nada. Zilch.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-(a-case-for-fighters-)/page177#ixzz2jjENEgB5

As stated above, I would not allow any PC, sans additional spells, to create a creature that has spellcasting abilities or spell like abilities.

And you see no contradiction in that? I mean, you've flat out changed the text of the spells to limit caster power.

 

[Wicht]

Nope. No contradiction. The purpose of the second is not to do the first, but rather keep things uniform in application. And I could be, I think, after running through some examples in my head, persuaded to allow limiting spell-casting or spell-like abilities in line with other general in-game principles (as I also outlined in a subsequent post). I would want to playtest it out I think to reach a final conclusion as to how to make it work the smoothest, easiest and most consistently.

To counter though, I think that your over generous interpretation of the spell's actual abilities inflates caster power. I don't want to inflate their power. But I don't work to purposefully limit them. Again, this does not imply an absence of limits, but rather limits within the framework of the game and the principles of the rules of the game.

I also have not changed the text of the spell in question. I have simply chosen to assume that in the majority of cases, high level spells are inappropriate for a simulacrum. And which is why, looking through the actual spells being employed, I could be persuaded that 1st, 2nd and even 3rd level spell like abilities are not going to be either game breaking or inappropriate.

 

[Hussar]

While I might not adopt the same line as Wicht, I agree that the spell wording says ""It appears to be the same as the original, but it has only one-half of the real creature’s levels or Hit Dice (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD)."

If the intent were that it retain all of its special abilities, why would they be included with all the other items that are to be carved back to those appropriate to a creature of that level or HD? That they are, rather than the rules saying "and retain all special abilities of the base creature" indicates to me that the intent is that the creature not retain all of its special abilities. It seems reasonable that the most powerful abilities be removed first. For the Solar (who counts as a L20 caster and has numerous magical abilities), his abilities should be carved back to a caster level of 10, and a proportionate number of his spell-like abilities removed. Reasonably, that would include any that could not be cast by a L10 caster, which is what the simulacrum is reduced to.

The vast array of possible creatures prohibits the spell description setting out what each one would retain - instead, it is left to the GM to assess what would be appropriate for any given creature.

Actually, I would agree with the underlined point. Caster level gets cut in half.

But, the creatures that can grant wishes cannot cast the spell as written. Their ability to grant spells has nothing to do with their caster level. Glabrezu are 14th level casters. Efreeti are even lower. Neither can ever grant wishes as an SLA. They grant wishes as a racial ability, which are not tied to level.

It would be like saying a first level dwarf cannot have Darkvision since Darkvision is a 2nd level spell. Darkvision is a racial ability, not an SLA.

Now, I totally agree that I'd rule against this as well. But, that's not the point. The point is that casters have a long, long list of spells which can be abused, not that they will be abused. I mean, people have described using Charm to get around a chamberlain as an abuse of the spell. Is using Spider Climb to pick pockets abusing the spell? It's an example pulled straight from Dragon magazine (2e era). What some people count as abuse varies pretty widely from table to table.

AFAIC, as soon as the DM declares X to be abusing the rules, he's exercised DM's force. Now this can be perfectly justified. But, it is still exercising DM force.