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.
First, the description of the Glabrezu does not actually indicate the nature of several of its abilities. Some are noted as Extraordinary, Spell-Like or Supernatural. These are “special abilities” according to the SRD. It has several abilities that are not noted as any of these three types, being:
- The treatment of its attacks as chaotic and evil aligned. I would rule that, as the simulacrum lacks both the nature and the extraplanar connection of the real thing, this ability does not carry through.
- The ability to grant a wish once per month. There is no discussion of just how the glabrezu goes about accomplishing this. It is simply an ability listed. Does it effectively cast a Wish spell? Does it call upon the forces of the Lower Planes? We don’t know, although I am inclined to view it as the latter. The ability does not exist in a vacuum – it is part of the creature itself. An interpretation of its workings is needed to assess whether retaining that ability is “appropriate”. I feel it is not, and does not carry through.
- Skill bonuses to Listen and Spot. Is the simulacrum as perceptive as a true Glabrezu? Why or why not?
Let’s consider these racial abilities, as we have no better place to classify them. Please show me where, in the Simulacrum spell, it is stated that the creature has any racial abilities whatsoever. I’m not seeing any reference to racial abilities at all, which means claiming the creature gets any racial abilities (any abilities other than half the real creature’s level or hit dice and the appropriate hit points, feats,
skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD, really) reads something into the spell that is not there.
Oh, and the Efreet’s wish-granting ability is specifically listed as a Spell-Like Ability, which therefore is retained only if, and to the extent, appropriate under the spell’s retention of “appropriate for a half as powerful version of the creature”. A half HD efreet is weaker than a Janni. It should therefore have less spell-like abilities than the Janni does. That seems to let out wish-granting.
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.
The racial abilities listed for PC characters are extraprdinary abilities (Dwarf Traits (EX)), so whether they are shared by a Dwarf simulacrum depends on whether it is “appropriate” that they have such abilities. Going through the list, I would say that many of these come from a dwarven upbringing, which the Simulacrum lacks. Those based on its physiology (stats, size, land speed, darkvision, stability, save bonuses) would be retained and those based on dwarven upbringing or training (stonecutting, WF, attack bonus, dodge bonus, skill bonuses, languages) are not, although some of these could be simulated using the skill points and feats appropriate for a creature of its hit dice.
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.
We’re mixing apples and oranges here. The simulacrum spell questions what the spell can do. If you assert that Spider Climb or Charm Person can be cast with whispered verbal components, or cannot be detected by Detect Magic, you are arguing against the mechanics. Similarly, Spider Climb as written in 3e provides no bonus to the skills used to pick pockets (it no longer refers to sticky hands either).
Charm Person can be detected by skills and magic – that is part of the rules. No one is denying it can be cast on the chamberlain – we are denying that this can be done inobtrusively (absent feats to do so) or undetectably (Sense Motive, sudden behavioral shifts attracting suspicion, Detect Magic). We are also saying that this has consequences. You can’t Fireball a city street and expect no repercussions, and similarly being caught out exerting magical control over another person, or stealing their possessions with a Spider Climb spell, can have negative repercussions. Pulling a sword and threatening, torturing or killing the chamberlain would also have negative repercussions.
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.
There is a difference between “abusing the rules” and “ignoring the rules”. To me, the suggestion that the Glabrezu gains all abilities not specifically stated to be gained is an interpretation of the spell description, and a very generous one at that. To me, it is more reasonable that the spell description says what the spell does, and not what it
does not do.
y beef is that in your style, the DM does this every time.
No one but you is saying that. I, and I believe Wicht, are sorry you feel you have been abused and victimized by mean, nasty GMs in the past. However, your psychological trauma is impairing your objectivity in this discussion.
Do you honestly think that using Charm Person to bypass a recalcitrant NPC is on the same level of mechanical abuse as the Simulacrum spell?
I think the former is possible under a reasonable interpretation the rules of the spell, and the abuses you suggest for the latter are not consistent with a reasonable interpretation of the rules of the spell. That does not mean the former is guaranteed to have no negative consequences. It does mean that, having cast the spell, the Chamberlain either saves or becomes Friendly, and subject to opposed CHA checks as set out in the spell description, but does not become your willing slave or sock puppet.
The steeotype Enchantress who wraps men around her little finger so they obey her every whim is using a spell more powerful than Charm Person – those men are way more than Friendly.
That interpreting "hazardous" to mean, "Destroys all your magic items" is the only valid interpretation of a Rope Trick?
Not at all. Neither do I believe that an interpretation that renders “havardous” to be “trivial” is appropriate. My preference is the more clearly spelled out Pathfinder rule, which removes “hazardous” from the equation entirely.
That ruling by fiat that an NPC absolutely cannot be diplomacied simply because the DM doesn't feel that it's appropriate?
Provided there is an in-game reason, sure. Why don’t I ask another gamer to come in and play the chamberlain? Now he is a PC, so he is immune to all interaction skills, right? Perhaps we create a custom feat that allows the NPC immunity to a single interaction skill, or perhaps makes him immune to having his attitude adjusted beyond “indifferent” (much like the Pathfinder Rage Power which renders the user immune to Shaken and Frightened conditions). Sure, you can take “Stubborn as a mule” too – then you will be immune to diplomacy. [Maybe PC’s should not be immune to interaction skills, but that’s another issue entirely.]
It isn't that the rulings are bad. They're perfectly fine. It's that if I am forced by the mechanics to play with two sets of rules - one for casters and one for non-casters - I think it's perhaps a better idea to change the mechanics.
By definition, casters use the mechanics for casting spells and on-casters do not. Therefore, applying your criteria, we must change the mechanics to eliminate the set of rules for spells. How o we do that, while retaining casters?
Wicht and N'raac are claiming that their rulings are not DM Force in any way. That they are simply reading the text of the rules and applying what's there, while ignoring the fact that their particular rulings may very well not be contained within the text of the rules at all. Now, when the text of the rules is bad - such as Astral Projection or Simulacrum, or Polymorph, then it's necessary for the DM to step in.
I have no real beef with that. These are fairly obviously problematic rules and are in need of a good scrubbing.
Polymorph I agree. The others are examples of interpretation, not GM fiat, in my view. Only when we actually override the rules of the spell (which I believe Wicht does when he suggests removing all spell-like and casting abilities from a simulacrum) do I believe we have crossed the line to “GM Force”. That term is tossed around a lot with no real consensus of where the line is drawn, by the way.
Where I draw the line though is the fact that the same line of thinking is then applied to player actions which are not abusive in any way. When the player is following both the letter and the spirit of the rules and is still being blocked by the DM. Such as using Charm Person on the Chamberlain. Or manipulating the game world so that any success which is gained by the caster player only serves to have them succeed backward. They do everything right, but it gets them no where and only serves to frustrate the players.
Again, you see a universal constant that the GM runs a game designed to frustrate the players. I see a game where “player fiat”, such as “I cast this spell and it works other than as written so I get what I want” is adjudicated away, and the players must face the challenges before them using the resources actually available to them under the rules, not under the most generous possible interpretation of the rules (such as “a Charmed Person will never have any negative feelings about having his mind influenced in such fashion”) or out and out ignoring the rules (why can’t I just whisper my verbal components?”).
Similarly, a Fighter swinging his sword is following both the letter and the spirit of the rules. He must still roll to hit, and roll for damage. He does not get to state that “I draw my sword and strike the Chamberalin’s head of with a single mighty blow” nor “I summon a Glabrezu with Planar Binding and he grants me a wish”.
The Glabrezu example is a very good example, in my mind, of this. The player has done everything right. He's gone through all the steps and summoned the Glabrezu with the intent of bargaining for a wish. But, no matter what, he will not get that wish - the Glabrezu has granted a wish already, the Glabrezu will automatically reject all wishes that are not extremely penalizing to the caster, etc.
I agree it is a very good example
of your mindset. The player has summoned the Glabrezu, not with the intent of bargaining for a wish (you have consistently indicated every situation where the Glabrezu rejects your initial offer is the GM picking on the poor little player – that is not bargaining), but automatic servitude of the Glabrezu.
He will, as the rules indicate, “use this ability to offer a mortal whatever he or she desires—but unless the
wish is used to create pain and suffering in the world, the glabrezu demands either terrible evil acts or great sacrifice as compensation”. If you want the wish, you must provide the compensation, or select a wish used to create pain and suffering in the world. Not death, which all of your proposed auto-successes caused, but ongoing pain and suffering “from which death would be a merciful release”.
There is no such thing as a free lunch, much less a free wish. You want something for nothing, and you are unwilling to accept any rules interpretation which fails to grant it to you.
How is my interpretation generous? I'm going by what's actually written there. It doesn't say that racial abilities are limited in some fashion.
It doesn’t say a simulacrum gets any racial abilities whatsoever.
Umm, you have actually changed the text of the spell in question. A simulacrum of a 14th level cleric would have 4th level spells. A simulacrum of a dragon would have a breath weapon and caster abilities of a dragon half its hit dice. Limiting simulacrum's to 1-3rd level spells is completely outside the text of the spell. You have re-written the spell.
Here I am in agreement. Mark that on the calendars!
Just to be absolutely clear here, by the text of the spell, there is nothing preventing a wizard from doing it to himself to gain a wizard completely under his own control. That simulacrum could study from his spell book and cast spells as a caster half the level of the original. And, it would have all the feats of the wizard half the level.
How's that for a potions and scroll making machine? I'm 14th level, so, I create a 7th level simulacrum of myself, complete with magic crafting skills. The simulacrum creates items until it runs out of xp (7th level is 21000 xp), which allows me to craft magic items free of xp cost - although the raw material cost remains the same. All for 700 gp in ruby and 700 xp. Nice work if you can get it.
OK, first to the xp issue (which is removed in Pathfinder, and good riddance to it – WBL is a fine replacement), I note that “A simulacrum has no ability to become more powerful.” A Simulacrum dragon will not gain power as it ages. A simulacrum character will not gain xp. In my view, it is perfectly reasonable to interpret this to mean the simulacrum does not possess xp to expend on magic item creation. Its abilities come from magic, not xp.
Secnd, I would restrict a simulacrum of any wizard to a choice of feats from that wizard. Assuming your wizard had Brew Potion by 7
th level, your Simulacrum would as well. Scribe Scroll is a no brainer – all wizards have the feat, so no issue with it being possessed by the simulacrum.
Third, READ THE SPELL – the minimum xp cost of any simulacrum is 1,000 xp, so you are claiming a 30% discount above. I stress READ THE SPELL because, with very limited exceptions, that is al Wicht and I are doing – we READ THE SPELL and we then interpret the words to assess the intent for the game.
In my view, we do not nerf the spellcaster, but neither do we assume any interpretation which carries an abusive or game breaking result was the intent of the designer. You seem to feel that any interpretation which is not as generous as possible to the caster is the only appropriate one (which takes me back to arguments like "I cast Magic Missile and target the fighter's eyes so he is blinded" and "I cast Create Water to fill the opponents lungs so he drowns" -typically followed with "it doesn't say I can't, so I must be able to".
