So I have a question about the simulacrum from Sulfurous Impersonation:
Sulfurous Impersonation.
As a bonus action, the oblex can extrude a piece of itself that assumes the appearance of one Medium or smaller creature whose memories it has stolen.
It states that it takes a bonus action to create a simulacrum, but it doesn't say how long it would take for the Oblex to absorb it back into itself or destroy it.
I know this is up to the DM, since it wasn't explicitly stated, so I was wondering what others think.
Yeah up to DM. But since it simply disappears with no harm to the source Oblex if the tether is broken, I would assume it can simply be reabsorbed at will.
I wouldn't let the Oblex do it as a reaction off turn in order to avoid the extrusion being attacked and taking damage... but yeah, on its own turn? Just let it do it for free (maybe taking up its free object interaction?), or as a Bonus, but probably not requiring an Action or longer. But open to DM ruling either way.
The slimy tether it immune to damage, but it is severed if there is no opening at least 1 inch wide between the oblex’s main body and the simulacrum. The simulacrum disappears if the tether is severed.
All it takes to dispose of the simulacrum is to reduce the connection to less than 1 inch wide. Assuming the Oblex can vary its shape at will, pinching itself off would pretty much amount to a non-action; Equivalent to maintaining concentration.
Even doing it as a reaction should be fine, because it's mechanically identical to "killing" the Simulacrum, which isn't preferable to "avoiding damage".
Sure it is. Damage to the Simulacrum is damage to the Oblex. The Simulacra don’t provide any additional turns or action economy in combat, they’re purely vulnerabilities, other than as additional points of origin for pseudopod attacks and as blocked lanes. I don’t want it severing ties to avoid hits from players, without an invitation in the MM to do so.
Even doing it as a reaction should be fine, because it's mechanically identical to "killing" the Simulacrum, which isn't preferable to "avoiding damage".
The simulacrum shares the Oblex's HP, so allowing it to "pinch off" the simulacrum as a reaction is basically letting it remove a hit box to dodge an attack.
[Edit]Got here late. Started to reply 45 minutes ago and got distracted.
The DM decides on each and every monster ability. It is incredibly bad form for a player to actually be reading the stat blocks of a monster, in order to gain an advantage when the group faces it. As a DM who often play with other DM's, or DM for them, I fully expect, even hope, the DM running ANY monster changes the stat blocks so the players can't cheat.
The DM decides on each and every monster ability. It is incredibly bad form for a player to actually be reading the stat blocks of a monster, in order to gain an advantage when the group faces it. As a DM who often play with other DM's, or DM for them, I fully expect, even hope, the DM running ANY monster changes the stat blocks so the players can't cheat.
As long as they aren't looking it up during the game it's probably fine. Any experienced player will run into a few of the same monsters more than once, and there are also a lot of players that DM. And I doubt they will be able to remember many details. Plus, in game you can usually roll a check to see if your character knows any details about the monster. And at least it is only monster stats, metagaming an adventure book is a much greater crime.
The DM decides on each and every monster ability. It is incredibly bad form for a player to actually be reading the stat blocks of a monster, in order to gain an advantage when the group faces it. As a DM who often play with other DM's, or DM for them, I fully expect, even hope, the DM running ANY monster changes the stat blocks so the players can't cheat.
As long as they aren't looking it up during the game it's probably fine. Any experienced player will run into a few of the same monsters more than once, and there are also a lot of players that DM. And I doubt they will be able to remember many details. Plus, in game you can usually roll a check to see if your character knows any details about the monster. And at least it is only monster stats, metagaming an adventure book is a much greater crime.
Ummm...no. No player can "run a check" to know any details of a monster", especially one they have never encountered before. And as to some player cracking open Mord's and "just reading for fun", and then 3 weeks later an Elder Oblex shows up in game, that player suddenly is in a situation of potential cheating.
As a DM, I have to walk a very fine line between "what do I know as a player and DM", and "what do I know as a char". The best DM's totally shake up the stat blocks to keep experienced players and DM's entertained with new stuff, and to head off other power-gamer cheaters who think it is perfectly fine to gain out of game knowledge of monsters.
Many players both DM and play. Or, just enjoy reading D&D materials, because it's their hobby. If you prefer playing with players who don't know about anything outside the PHB, that's fine, but not every group is like that, and that's okay too. Not really sure what you latched onto in this thread to give rise to complaining about player metagaming though...
The DM decides on each and every monster ability. It is incredibly bad form for a player to actually be reading the stat blocks of a monster, in order to gain an advantage when the group faces it. As a DM who often play with other DM's, or DM for them, I fully expect, even hope, the DM running ANY monster changes the stat blocks so the players can't cheat.
As long as they aren't looking it up during the game it's probably fine. Any experienced player will run into a few of the same monsters more than once, and there are also a lot of players that DM. And I doubt they will be able to remember many details. Plus, in game you can usually roll a check to see if your character knows any details about the monster. And at least it is only monster stats, metagaming an adventure book is a much greater crime.
Ummm...no. No player can "run a check" to know any details of a monster", especially one they have never encountered before. And as to some player cracking open Mord's and "just reading for fun", and then 3 weeks later an Elder Oblex shows up in game, that player suddenly is in a situation of potential cheating.
As a DM, I have to walk a very fine line between "what do I know as a player and DM", and "what do I know as a char". The best DM's totally shake up the stat blocks to keep experienced players and DM's entertained with new stuff, and to head off other power-gamer cheaters who think it is perfectly fine to gain out of game knowledge of monsters.
Ummm...yes. (*roll a check* btw, specifically a knowledge/intelligence check). Adventurers are perfectly capable of listening to battle stories or reading up on monsters just the same as players are. You ask your DM if your character knows anything about the monster, the DM might ask you to roll a related intelligence skill, then tells you what you know. I pity players whose DM only lets them learn about creatures by killing them...
If that hypothetical player is able to remember anything useful about 1 of the 100 monsters he read about 3 weeks prior, more power to him. It has been a day since I read Oblex a 5th time and I am already only able to remember that they are psychic oozes that can copy their victims (basically just a general description really).
Obviously I don't condone cheating. I was just pointing out that reading about monsters in your free time isn't cheating really. Players have reasons to need to know about monsters on occasion (summoning spells, potential companions, etc).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So I have a question about the simulacrum from Sulfurous Impersonation:
It states that it takes a bonus action to create a simulacrum, but it doesn't say how long it would take for the Oblex to absorb it back into itself or destroy it.
I know this is up to the DM, since it wasn't explicitly stated, so I was wondering what others think.
Yeah up to DM. But since it simply disappears with no harm to the source Oblex if the tether is broken, I would assume it can simply be reabsorbed at will.
I wouldn't let the Oblex do it as a reaction off turn in order to avoid the extrusion being attacked and taking damage... but yeah, on its own turn? Just let it do it for free (maybe taking up its free object interaction?), or as a Bonus, but probably not requiring an Action or longer. But open to DM ruling either way.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
All it takes to dispose of the simulacrum is to reduce the connection to less than 1 inch wide. Assuming the Oblex can vary its shape at will, pinching itself off would pretty much amount to a non-action; Equivalent to maintaining concentration.
Even doing it as a reaction should be fine, because it's mechanically identical to "killing" the Simulacrum, which isn't preferable to "avoiding damage".Sure it is. Damage to the Simulacrum is damage to the Oblex. The Simulacra don’t provide any additional turns or action economy in combat, they’re purely vulnerabilities, other than as additional points of origin for pseudopod attacks and as blocked lanes. I don’t want it severing ties to avoid hits from players, without an invitation in the MM to do so.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Ah, ok! I misread the ability.
Yeah, then definitely not as a reaction, but otherwise trivial.
The simulacrum shares the Oblex's HP, so allowing it to "pinch off" the simulacrum as a reaction is basically letting it remove a hit box to dodge an attack.
[Edit]Got here late. Started to reply 45 minutes ago and got distracted.
The DM decides on each and every monster ability. It is incredibly bad form for a player to actually be reading the stat blocks of a monster, in order to gain an advantage when the group faces it. As a DM who often play with other DM's, or DM for them, I fully expect, even hope, the DM running ANY monster changes the stat blocks so the players can't cheat.
As long as they aren't looking it up during the game it's probably fine. Any experienced player will run into a few of the same monsters more than once, and there are also a lot of players that DM. And I doubt they will be able to remember many details. Plus, in game you can usually roll a check to see if your character knows any details about the monster. And at least it is only monster stats, metagaming an adventure book is a much greater crime.
Ummm...no. No player can "run a check" to know any details of a monster", especially one they have never encountered before. And as to some player cracking open Mord's and "just reading for fun", and then 3 weeks later an Elder Oblex shows up in game, that player suddenly is in a situation of potential cheating.
As a DM, I have to walk a very fine line between "what do I know as a player and DM", and "what do I know as a char". The best DM's totally shake up the stat blocks to keep experienced players and DM's entertained with new stuff, and to head off other power-gamer cheaters who think it is perfectly fine to gain out of game knowledge of monsters.
Many players both DM and play. Or, just enjoy reading D&D materials, because it's their hobby. If you prefer playing with players who don't know about anything outside the PHB, that's fine, but not every group is like that, and that's okay too. Not really sure what you latched onto in this thread to give rise to complaining about player metagaming though...
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Ummm...yes. (*roll a check* btw, specifically a knowledge/intelligence check). Adventurers are perfectly capable of listening to battle stories or reading up on monsters just the same as players are. You ask your DM if your character knows anything about the monster, the DM might ask you to roll a related intelligence skill, then tells you what you know. I pity players whose DM only lets them learn about creatures by killing them...
If that hypothetical player is able to remember anything useful about 1 of the 100 monsters he read about 3 weeks prior, more power to him. It has been a day since I read Oblex a 5th time and I am already only able to remember that they are psychic oozes that can copy their victims (basically just a general description really).
Obviously I don't condone cheating. I was just pointing out that reading about monsters in your free time isn't cheating really. Players have reasons to need to know about monsters on occasion (summoning spells, potential companions, etc).