I'm not sure that I am disagreeing with you exactly on this point, except to disagree that the spell, as written, actually mandates that the simulacrum possess the same class as the original. It does not. What it says is the simulacrum has half the levels of the original, but it does not specify the levels are of the same class. It is conceivably within the parameters of the spell that creating a simulacrum of a 14th level wizard gets you a 7th level creature that might be a fighter. I am not suggesting that this is necessarily the most natural use of the spell, but I don't think it would be a misuse of the spell either. There is, indeed, in the literature (cf. Azure Bonds) a bit of a precedent for such a creation occurring (Alias was, iirc, a sort of clone or copy of a female spell-caster; I realize that the simulacrum spell was not exactly what was used, but the idea is very similar).
I find it tough to envision the Simulacrum being completely different from the original. Why do we use a part of the original to make its simulacrum then? Can I, as a L14 wizard, create an array of simulacrums of various L7 characters with differing skills, feats and classes to create my own private army of diverse characters, using only myself as the template? To me, that’s not what the spell is suited for.
I think I mentioned it before, but James Jacob notes that Simulacrum is primarily a DM spell for story-telling purposes and its open-ness should be understood in light of this fact. If I, as a DM, want a Simulacrum of a fire-breathing dragon, then the spell allows for that. But if I want a sort of dwarvish doppleganger assassin, which tries to infiltrate a group of dwarves but does not have dark-vision, then the spell allows for that too. If I want a simulacrum to pretend to be a cleric (but deny the simulacrum divine spells), the spell allows for that too. The flexibility of the spell allows for great DM creativity when being used on the story-telling side of the screen.
I’d have to say I’m not overly concerned about what the Pathfinder lead designer considers a D&D 3.5 spell to be intended for. He’s as entitled to an opinion as anyone else, and can certainly set the Pathfinder purpose, with rules or rulings to back it up. To me, the spell description is what’s important.
If the GM needs something for story purposes, he can make it up. If this spell is for storytelling purposes to let the GM’s creativity run wild it does a poor job, as you have to be a L13 arcane spellcaster to access it, restricting creativity of who uses it, and requires snow, so no Desert Mages either.
But with a player using it, then the DM needs to have some sort of clear ideas of what he will or will not allow the player to do with it. My initial suggestion of allowing the player to determine what spell-like abilities the creature has through the use of additional spells was just one idea of how to do this without actually changing the spell. It would be superior, I think, to the DM telling the player what the creature did or did not have. I do not think the player just arbitrarily picking the abilities he likes is the way to go however; indeed story-wise, it is better for the simulacrum to have some deviations from exactly what the player envisioned, potential flaws as it were. But the more the player can pick and choose, the better for his side, which is why I think the inclusion of additional spells is not a bad way to go. Alternatively, like I also said, a point system which allows the player to build in abilities would be a rather neat alteration to the spell and might prove superior play-wise, though more limiting from the DM side of the screen.
I think simply redesigning the creature to hive down its abilities is as effective an approach. I’m not planning on character builds or entire campaigns built around Simulacrums, so a case by case “here’s what that creature halved in power gets” model works fine for me.
Sorry, you're right. I missed the minimum 1000 xp. Granted, I still get 21000 xp worth of magic items for 1000 xp. The point does still remain.
Only with a generous interpretation of the spell. How does that wizard have 21,000 xp to spare, over and above what it needs for the “half your level” it is locked at? He needs 21,000 xp to be L7. He cannot spend xp if it would reduce his level (I thought there was an official rule on that, but I cannot find it).
This would carry a lot more weight if you guys didn't screw over the casters with every single interpretation you've put forth in this thread. Not once have you stepped up and given an interpretation that didn't screw over the caster.
First off, where you see the caster “screwed over”, we see the sell interpreted with reasonable guidelines. I don’t think “not getting unlimited free wishes” constitutes being “screwed over”. I think getting unlimited free wishes is “screwing over” the game. An Invisible wizard detected by Scent, blindsight or hearing is not “screwed over”, nor is a wizard whose Charm victims are not pleased with having their minds tampered with. Requiring the wizard to follow the rules and speak his spells in a clear, strong voice is not “screwing him over” either. Requiring the bargaining specifically called for in Planar Binding be undertaken, not allowing Astral Projection to generate extra uses of limited use items, etc. etc. etc. are no more “screwing over the wizard” than requiring to hit and damage rolls is “screwing over” the fighter.
In 1e, I was not “screwing over” the casters to refuse to allow Magic Missile to cause inescapable blindness, or Create Water to instantly kill most creatures by filling their lungs with water either. I was making reasonable interpretations which did not expand the power of the spells inappropriately.
The caster is limited to the effects his spell can actually accomplish. When we ignore the restrictions and limitations of the spells, we “screw over” the noncasters by giving the casters an undeserved, unbalanced and inequitable power boost. So I come back to actually reading the spells and interpreting their effects rationally resulting in a much diminished power disparity than that presented by those who think Charm Person = Sock Puppets; Invisible = Undetectable; Planar Binding = Free Slaves; etc.
Any wish will never be sufficiently vile. Heck, burning down orphanages and murdering priests of good wasn't sufficiently vile.
Why does the Demon want to kill the orphans and priests? He wants corruption, pain and suffering. You offer the mortals a final escape from the clutches of the demon. Now, if you were setting up a replacement of that Good Cleric so you could lead his trusting flock into temptation, or taking charge of the orphanage so that you can mold those young minds to demon worship, that would seem like the kind of thing the Demon would back – but you have to keep your bargain and work towards those ends. Instead, you want the Demon to give you something (not sure what – why do you care about the priest or the orphans in the first place?) for nothing, and the Demon should just co-operate because I wrote CE on my character sheet, and that means we’re all bestest buddies!
You forget the time resource as well. I can still go out and adventure while my simulacrum sits at home and crafts.
Sure. That’s the advantage gained. How significant is that advantage? You get the items for half price. You would have been able to use your crafting feats to some extent, I expect, otherwise you are being screwed over in wasting the feat. You still require some time – the Simulacrum has to take the time to craft. It needs to pay living expenses as well – guess who will have to shell out that gold? And he can only craft a subset of what you yourself could have crafted as he is only half your level, and will be missing some of your feats, particularly the higher level ones. I don’t think those extra potions and scrolls, which are still limited by your wealth, are going to be a game-breaker. But it won’t work in 3.5 because the simulacrum lacks the pool of xp to spend.
BTW, Pathfinder bounced the xp cost of the simulacrum, like it removed most, if not all, “costs xp” magic effects, but raised the price to 500 gp per HD of the simulacrum. Pathfinder also added a Lesser Simulacrum which has no magical abilities (so apparently James Jacobs thinks Simulacrums do have magical abilities, @
Wicht ).
To be fair though, I would buy N'raac interpretation of the xp. That seems like a very elegant way to plug the hole.
I’m 99 ¾% certain that the “can’t spend xp and drop a level” rule already exists, so I don’t claim the credit for that.
However, on racial abilities, you're saying that a Simulacrum would never have, say, Darkvision. Really? A simulacrum dwarf lacks darkvision? How is that a duplicate? Duplicate, to you guys, means, "Umm, sort of copy, but, not really"?
How is a 7
th level Fighter a duplicate of a 15
th level fighter? How is a duplicate detectable by a Spot check (how many ranks did your Wizard have in “Disguise”, again?) or a DC 20 Sense Motive check? It is an illusory and imperfect copy, not a flawless duplicate.
As I said above, though, I would be generous and allow some racial abilities to carry over, in the spirit of the simulacrum having “appropriate” abilities. You seem to think not allowing every ability carry forward 100% is “screwing over the caster”. Reading the RAW, exactly AW, allowing any racial ability (they are not “special abilities” or otherwise mentioned) is a generous interpretation. It retains “appropriate abilities” of the original watered down to half power. To allow no abilities would, I agree, screw over the caster. But allowing all abilities is an interpretation generous far beyond the actual words of the spell – it screws over everybody else.
But, again, this is precisely what I'm talking about. Every single interpretation will always be the most disadvantageous to the player.
Given that every interpretation you have presented has maximized the advantages to the player, I fail to see how we can make any interpretation that is not comparatively disadvantageous to the player.
You first present examples of spell abuses as game breakers, then we are “screwing over the caster” when we present the actual words of the spell and a reasonable interpretation of those words that prevents the spell from being game breaking. You consider any deviation from the most player-advantaged interpretation possible (sometimes moving outside interpretation entirely to “more advantageous than the plainly written words”, such as “why can’t I whisper my verbal components”), then you bitterly complain when any interpretation reigns those advantages back in to a rational interpretation of the actual words of the rule or the spell. The game designers are all morons because they overpower the casters, and the GM's are all petty tyrants for failing to allow the spellcasters to abuse their excessive powers. Frankly, I've lost any concept of the point you are actually trying to make.
(though the poor fighter in that party, with strength being his lowest stat!) (and, we should realize, in this party, the cleric is useless because simulacrums are, among other things, apparently immune to positive energy healing)
