Simulacrum question

[da chicken]

You're wrong, Jondor.

Empower says it affects any variable numeric elements of the spell (except caster level checks). Simulacrum is not written significantly different than shocking grasp (max 1d8+20), ray of enfeeblement (1d6+5 max), bull's strength, or any other spell in which the variable numeric portion is "die + constant." The example of magic missle in the description clearly indicates that empower should be (die + constant) * 1.5, not die * 1.5 + constant.

The only interpretation of empowered simulacrum is that it is (1d10 + 50) * 1.5. However, itis also apparant that this is an unintended result of how Empower Spell works with simulacrum. If you want to use common sense to house rule it, that's fine. Probably even wise. But that doesn't prevent it from being a non-standard rule becasue no erratum exists on simulacrum. If you go play in Living Greyhawk or Living City, (1d10 + 50) * 1.5 is how the spell will function.

 

[Marshall]

The only interpretation of empowered simulacrum is that it is (1d10 + 50) * 1.5. However, itis also apparant that this is an unintended result of how Empower Spell works with simulacrum.

Hey Look! Yet another example of how MM feats were not designed to stack with themselves...

 

[Caliban]

You're wrong, Jondor.

I don't think he is in this case.

Empower says it affects any variable numeric elements of the spell (except caster level checks). Simulacrum is not written significantly different than shocking grasp (max 1d8+20), ray of enfeeblement (1d6+5 max), bull's strength, or any other spell in which the variable numeric portion is "die + constant." The example of magic missle in the description clearly indicates that empower should be (die + constant) * 1.5, not die * 1.5 + constant.

In this case I think the order of the static and variable element is important.

I would view it as a static number plus a variable, instead of a variable that includes a static number.

The only interpretation of empowered simulacrum is that it is (1d10 + 50) * 1.5.

I disagree that it is the only interpretation. Simulacrum doesn't follow the standard PHB method of stating a variable (i.e. 50% +1d10% instead of 1d10%+50).

I think this was deliberate, so that Empower would not affect the static element. I know that in standard math the order of the operations doesn't always make a difference, but this isn't a math book.

Given two seemingly valid interpretations, one of which seems way to powerful and one of which seems balanced, I have to assume that the more balanced interpetation is the correct one.

However, itis also apparant that this is an unintended result of how Empower Spell works with simulacrum. If you want to use common sense to house rule it, that's fine. Probably even wise. But that doesn't prevent it from being a non-standard rule becasue no erratum exists on simulacrum. If you go play in Living Greyhawk or Living City, (1d10 + 50) * 1.5 is how the spell will function.

I wouldn't count on it working that way in LG or LC.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

The fact remains that this spell needs some clarification, especially wrt. supernatural and spell-like abilities.

In a recent game of mine, a Demon Prince created a simulacrum. I used my best judgement to adjudicate it's abilities.

But is a simulacrum a construct? A magical beast? What is its alignment?

If a deity creates one or more simulacra, you have the potential of lots of very cheap avatars running around.

Has the Sage made any rulings on this spell?

 

[Cheiromancer]

Simulacrum doesn't follow the standard PHB method of stating a variable (i.e. 50% +1d10% instead of 1d10%+50).

I think this was deliberate, so that Empower would not affect the static element.

I just looked up the spell in the 2nd Edition Players Handbook, and it is written 50% + 1d10% there too.

If the order of numbers was chosen with Empower in mind, then the authors of the 2nd Edition showed an uncommon degree of foresight. I wish I still had my 1st Edition PHB available for reference.

 

[Caliban]

I just looked up the spell in the 2nd Edition Players Handbook, and it is written 50% + 1d10% there too.

If the order of numbers was chosen with Empower in mind, then the authors of the 2nd Edition showed an uncommon degree of foresight. I wish I still had my 1st Edition PHB available for reference.

Either way, the 50% obviously should not be included in the Empower.

 

[Kraedin]

Obviously? So 51%-60% isn't the variable, numeric effect of the simulacrum, while 2-5 is the variable, numeric effect of bull's strength? No need to add excess complexity to the rules that doesn't exist, Caliban. Keep going on like that, and you'll end up like the Sage.

 

[James McMurray]

I think he meant obvious in that allowing it to work that way is incredibly game breaking, especially once you stack an empower and end up with Simulacrums who are stronger than the original. In a case like this, added complexity is not "unneeded" it is required to maintain game balance.

 

[Kraedin]

Well, the only way to get the famed double or triple empowered simulacrum is through broken classes and items. Treat the disease, not the symtoms. Ban metamagic feat rods and the incantatrix. Don't fiddle with simulacrum.

 

[James McMurray]

An epic level character could also do the same thing with Improved Spell Capacity of Improved Metamagic (or even both combined for really scary simulacrums). I don't care what level you are, you shouldn't be able to create a duplicate of yourself that is more powerful than you yourself are and is also your abject servant. Especially since if you allow it, there's nothing stopping the simulacrum from creating a duplicate of itself which has even more power than it does, and so on.

Alternatively, someone could research a lower level version of Simulacrum that created a 25% + 1d10% duplicate. Then multiple empowers would be easier to use.

Heck, even the ability to create a duplicate of yourself that is 18th level (via an empowered Simulacrum of a 20th level character) is too powerful.