Wonderful, broken Simulacrum

[ARandomGod]

Really though, the number isn't important. The fact is that with the existence of all these other low level abilities (Heroism, Inspire Competence), there could be big stacking trouble if you add in another low-level ability that gives a +5 insight bonus. Do you really want the 5th-level wizard with Lesser MoP, Heroism, and a Cloak of the Elvenkind and 10 Dex to Hide as well as an 18 Dex Rogue of the same level with maxed-out ranks? If so, then I guess that this spell is right for your campaign. As for me, I still remember the trivialisation of thieves in 2E and the brokenness of the +10 Cloak of the Elvenkind in 3.0, and I'm quite happy with things as they stand for skill bonuses. And that's not to mention the ability of the spell to pull your buns off the burner when you need to make the critical save/ dodge the critical attack.

Really, I'd say if the arcane caster wants to hid as well as a high dex rogue, he should cast invisibility. That's all it takes, and he'll be doing a LOT better than a similiar level rogue, assuming low to mid levels.

And if you're missing the brokenness of that cloak of elvenkind, there still is a magic item that grants +10 to hide. And a simultanious +10 to disguise as well. That's the 'new' cloak of elvenkind.

 

[Jack Simth]

Really though, the number isn't important. The fact is that with the existence of all these other low level abilities (Heroism, Inspire Competence), there could be big stacking trouble if you add in another low-level ability that gives a +5 insight bonus. Do you really want the 5th-level wizard with Lesser MoP, Heroism, and a Cloak of the Elvenkind and 10 Dex to Hide as well as an 18 Dex Rogue of the same level with maxed-out ranks? If so, then I guess that this spell is right for your campaign.

He wouldn't be: the Rouge would have 8 (ranks) + 4 (dex) + 5 (cloak) fairly simply to get 17 constantly; he could probably convince the party wizard to give him Heroism for another +2 and Cat's Grace for yet another +2 on top, if he really needed to be out of sight; for that matter, he might even go with the Stealthy, the Skill Focus(Hide) feat, or both to get an additional permanent +2, +3, or +5 added in; such a rouge could fairly readily get up to 22 permanent, 26 short-term with aid if needed (and would also likely have a decent Move Silently check); such a wizard would have 5 (cloak) + 2 (Heroism) + 5 (LMoP, only works on the first check; recasting for later checks takes a strong voice, and pretty much gives away the location - don't try this with more than one critter around!) = 12, for the cost of 1 magic item and two spells. Of course, that Wizard could also just cast Invisibility (a single level-2 spell) to get a DC 20 spot check to find that they are even around at all, with a DC 40 to actually figure out where, exactly, that invisible creature is (DC 30/50 if holding still), which will commonly beat the two spell + 1 item combo you listed, unless some other caster is running around with See Invisible up.

As for me, I still remember the trivialisation of thieves in 2E and the brokenness of the +10 Cloak of the Elvenkind in 3.0, and I'm quite happy with things as they stand for skill bonuses. And that's not to mention the ability of the spell to pull your buns off the burner when you need to make the critical save/ dodge the critical attack.

The catch, though, is that it only works once per casting - yeah, you can maybe fix the reflex save to avoid that trap you accidentally stepped on, but unless you've prepared another, you won't be avoiding that first Sneak Attack of the Rouge that's been stalking you. Moreover, you are required to declare the use BEFORE you make the roll, and it's used win or lose - you can't retroactively do so to save your bacon. Even further, you don't necessarily know what trap the GM is springing on you when you apply it to your save - he just tells you to save vs. something, and then tells you the results after you roll - are you wasting it on a simple 1d6 mundane dart trap, or a deadly 1d6 death poisoned dart trap? An arrow trap? A hidden pit trap? A tackle by something that will actually HELP you if it hits? Sure, it's handy - but it's far from a game-breaker in most circumstances.

 

[Rystil Arden]

I'd rather not argue about MoP in this Simulacrum thread, although if you'd like to do so, feel free to make a new thread about MoP. I'll just comment that giving the rogue magical aid to compensate the wizard is entirely besides the point. My point is that the existence of easily accessible magical aid at any level that provides a larger skill bonus than maxed-out ranks in the skill causes huge gaping balance issues in the skill check resolution system, unless everyone in the campaign setting has the same jacked-up access to magic as the PCs, which is extremely unlikely. Your sample rogue who beats the wizard in Hide is a prime example. If a similar wizard who was trying to make a skill check for which he did have ranks had a MoP-type effect, he could not be beaten by pretty much anyone, period (1 is not an auto-failure on skill checks and vice versa for 20), which is fine if he used a high-level spell slot to achieve this once per day, but a problem if he can carry around a wand that lets him do this all day long.

Side note: every time I see someone consistently misspell rogue as rouge, it kills me a little inside.

 

[Jack Simth]

I'd rather not argue about MoP in this Simulacrum thread, although if you'd like to do so, feel free to make a new thread about MoP. I'll just comment that giving the rogue magical aid to compensate the wizard is entirely besides the point.

Are you trying to say that it makes sense to give a Wizard a magic item that enhances a skill outside his specialty while not letting the Rogue have one that enhances a skill inside his specialty at the same level? Strikes me as a little odd.

My point is that the existence of easily accessible magical aid at any level that provides a larger skill bonus than maxed-out ranks in the skill causes huge gaping balance issues in the skill check resolution system, unless everyone in the campaign setting has the same jacked-up access to magic as the PCs, which is extremely unlikely.

We're going to have to get rid of the Jump spell then - and Expiditous retreat, and Invisibility, and ...

Besides, the only way you can make MoP provide a larger bonus than maxed-out ranks is with additional effects - (Greater) Heroism, stat-boosters, items, et cetera - while neglecting that a character, even without magic, of roughly the same level can still commonly (on a permanent basis, while the spell-boosting is a temporary basis) beat the spell combos due to such things as feat bonuses.

Your sample rogue who beats the wizard in Hide is a prime example. If a similar wizard who was trying to make a skill check for which he did have ranks had a MoP-type effect, he could not be beaten by pretty much anyone, period (1 is not an auto-failure on skill checks and vice versa for 20), which is fine if he used a high-level spell slot to achieve this once per day, but a problem if he can carry around a wand that lets him do this all day long.

Sure he could - using Hide again, it's cross-class for a wizard; at level 5, the Wiz is going to have, at most, 4 ranks in Hide. That puts your earlier combo up to 16 (4 ranks, +5 LMoP, +5 cloak, +2 Heroism) for a single check, 11 for the next without recasting; with just two feats, the rouge from the example is still getting 22 (8 ranks, +4 stat, +5 cloak, +2 stealthy, +3 Skill Focus) - and he can do so all day, at no additional expense, whereas the Wiz is either burning up his daily spell allotment or the recorces used to get the wand.

Side note: every time I see someone consistently misspell rogue as rouge, it kills me a little inside.

Meh, I've never been good at spelling. Stupid fonics teaching method.