Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Wicht" data-source="post: 6213375" data-attributes="member: 221"><p>I think you are misunderstanding me, Hussar. </p><p></p><p>I am not saying the dwarf simulacrum <em><u>never </u></em>has darkvision; I am saying the <em><u>guarantee </u></em>is not there. The spell is very open ended to allow DMs to craft a story using the spell in the way they think best. Outwardly, the simulacrum is a copy. But its actually only partly real. The spell text itself makes this clear - it only appears to be the original, its actually only a copy and an imperfect copy at that. You want a better copy, then you want the clone spell (level 8). So yes, its is sort of a copy; its not a carbon copy. </p><p></p><p>I do think the lack of identifying the type of the creature is a weakness of the spell text (there are some points of clarity that could be made; creature type being the foremost in my mind). I would personally tend to rule that it is immune to mind affecting effects (how do you charm an illusion?) but that it suffers from magics that might target the original creature type or race, such as bane. It would not, imo, be immune to crits and the like, but it might not actually have internal organs as we know them (its magically made of snow and ice). Alignment is an open question - probably it has the alignment of the creator, as it is under his control, but again, for a DM creation, that's open. But that's the point - the entire spell is open to DM interpretation. </p><p></p><p>Now, when a player casts the spell, the DM has to make some rulings. Likely through discussion and negotiation with the player, these sort of details will be hammered out each time, but its going to be different every single time it is cast, from game to game. The purpose is not to disadvantage the player though. If my players wanted to do something cool with the spell, I would probably go along with them. If they just wanted to see what special abilities they could control, we would have an intense negotiation about it. </p><p></p><p>If they wanted to simply craft a wizard capable of making low level potions and scrolls while they were out adventuring, I would allow it, actually. Don't have any problem with that. And such a thing might even open up some interesting story possibilities. If they want to craft a demon that can grant wishes, they are going to find that pretend demons can only pretend to cast wishes. But again, each use has to be decided on a case by case basis.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Wicht, post: 6213375, member: 221"] I think you are misunderstanding me, Hussar. I am not saying the dwarf simulacrum [I][U]never [/U][/I]has darkvision; I am saying the [I][U]guarantee [/U][/I]is not there. The spell is very open ended to allow DMs to craft a story using the spell in the way they think best. Outwardly, the simulacrum is a copy. But its actually only partly real. The spell text itself makes this clear - it only appears to be the original, its actually only a copy and an imperfect copy at that. You want a better copy, then you want the clone spell (level 8). So yes, its is sort of a copy; its not a carbon copy. I do think the lack of identifying the type of the creature is a weakness of the spell text (there are some points of clarity that could be made; creature type being the foremost in my mind). I would personally tend to rule that it is immune to mind affecting effects (how do you charm an illusion?) but that it suffers from magics that might target the original creature type or race, such as bane. It would not, imo, be immune to crits and the like, but it might not actually have internal organs as we know them (its magically made of snow and ice). Alignment is an open question - probably it has the alignment of the creator, as it is under his control, but again, for a DM creation, that's open. But that's the point - the entire spell is open to DM interpretation. Now, when a player casts the spell, the DM has to make some rulings. Likely through discussion and negotiation with the player, these sort of details will be hammered out each time, but its going to be different every single time it is cast, from game to game. The purpose is not to disadvantage the player though. If my players wanted to do something cool with the spell, I would probably go along with them. If they just wanted to see what special abilities they could control, we would have an intense negotiation about it. If they wanted to simply craft a wizard capable of making low level potions and scrolls while they were out adventuring, I would allow it, actually. Don't have any problem with that. And such a thing might even open up some interesting story possibilities. If they want to craft a demon that can grant wishes, they are going to find that pretend demons can only pretend to cast wishes. But again, each use has to be decided on a case by case basis. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Fighters vs. Spellcasters (a case for fighters.)
Top