Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

RPG Superstar 2015

Survey: Do the rules serve the setting or does the setting serve the rules.


Gamer Talk

151 to 200 of 308 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

From a practical advice and application perspective, this thread seems silly.

I guess it might happen in a PFS game, but I can't imagine someone showing up to a game table and saying "but in discussions on the message boards they said it was legal" as an excuse for something being allowed. I think my response as a fellow player or GM would be "then you can use it in a game there."

Rules are part of the setting and vice versa.

If monks exist as a class, then they exist in the world too. If wizards can cast fireball... then wizards can create tiny projectiles from their finger tip that zooms away and explodes in a 20ft radius of fire. If fire doesn't exist in my campaign world, I should probably remember to remove all fire spells.


Ashiel wrote:
stuff

Except fireball has no listed alignment. The only alignment on PB is evil. Only evil outsiders use the spell. But I'm sure that's all coincidence...

Forget the outsider part for a moment. Let's say you can use it to summon humans. Let's say you summon the local monarch into a circle from which he cannot escape without your leave. You think he's going to consider this a non-hostile action? "I only brought you here to offer you this great deal on a time share! Just sit quietly in my trap until you've heard the whole thing!"

Quote:
Casting this spell attempts a dangerous act...

Why is it dangerous? It's dangerous because the outsider is pissed. There are only two options for behavior of the outsider: flee or attack. Engaging in conversation is not an option. RAW = attack or flee. Period. It will not continue negotiating with you once it's free.

Quote:
Doesn't say that either. It does say you may roll dice to force it to do your bidding.

RAW there is no other way to get it to do your bidding. You summon it, you compel it, it breaks free, or it stays trapped.

Quote:
This process can be repeated until the creature promises to serve, until it breaks free, or until you decide to get rid of it by means of some other spell.

You want to try to use an obviously hostile method to gain a benefit, then talk your way out of the implications of the act, that's fine. If it works in your group, more power to you. But nothing you say is in RAW. And no moral person is going to agree with you that kidnapping and entrapping a sentient being to get it to do something for you is not a hostile act. By the time a wizard can perform a PB, he can also just go and talk to a genie in person. Good luck convincing it to give you buffs while you don't have it trapped, however...

Star Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vestrial wrote:
"stuff"

You must be out of your damn mind if you think outsiders are all mindless creatures of instinct. Negotiation is totally an option, especially when the caster isn't actually trapping them at all.


Vestrial wrote:
Except fireball has no listed alignment. The only alignment on PB is evil. Only evil outsiders use the spell. But I'm sure that's all coincidence...

Um, you clearly do not know what you're talking about. It doesn't say anywhere in the spell that casting planar binding is an aligned act, and in fact the subtype of the spell (which has also been acknowledged by Paizo as not being an aligned act merely to cast such a spell) is the same as the alignment of the creature that you call with it.

PRD-Planar Binding wrote:

School conjuration (calling) [see text];

...
When you use a calling spell to call an air, chaotic, earth, evil, fire, good, lawful, or water creature, it is a spell of that type.
Quote:
Forget the outsider part for a moment. Let's say you can use it to summon humans. Let's say you summon the local monarch into a circle from which he cannot escape without your leave. You think he's going to consider this a non-hostile action? "I only brought you here to offer you this great deal on a time share! Just sit quietly in my trap until you've heard the whole thing!"

Not evil. It would be a potential red flag. I'm picturing this as if I'm the guy being called for a moment. If I told him I'm not interested in a timeshare and would like to leave, and then I was whisked back to where I was before, I'm okay with that. Though to be honest if a wizard planar bound me to his tower to speak with me, I'd at least hear what he had to say. Honestly if ANYONE could pluck me out of my chair in front of my computer and pull me into another world because they wanted to speak with me, I'd probably listen to what they had to say at the very least.

Quote:
Quote:
Casting this spell attempts a dangerous act...
Why is it dangerous? It's dangerous because the outsider is pissed. There are only two options for behavior of the outsider: flee or attack. Engaging in conversation is not an option. RAW = attack or flee. Period. It will not continue negotiating with you once it's free.

You are adding things to the spell that are not there. It is a dangerous act because a creature can indeed break free, and you in fact have no control over them if they do so (whether they break free or you break them free yourself). If you are summoning a creature that is dangerous (such as an elemental) and it turns on you then you could be in big trouble (especially if you had to cast the spell via a scroll or somesuch and may actually be much weaker than the creature you're calling). However it doesn't mean that every creature that you call would be innately. That's attributing things to the spell that just is not there.

Quote:
RAW there is no other way to get it to do your bidding. You summon it, you compel it, it breaks free, or it stays trapped.

Actually it's called Diplomacy. Planar binding can merely arrange the meeting if you don't want to compel the creature to do so by force. It's entirely possible to simply not compel it and even free it if you want to (I'm not saying that freeing any ol' outsider is a smart idea, but it is your option).

Quote:
Quote:
This process can be repeated until the creature promises to serve, until it breaks free, or until you decide to get rid of it by means of some other spell.
You want to try to use an obviously hostile method to gain a benefit, then talk your way out of the implications of the act, that's fine. If it works in your group, more power to you. But nothing you say is in RAW.

And that's where you're getting things twisted. You don't have to compel anything. You could just talk to them and make a deal the old fashioned way. Or you could make a deal and then enter into the magically binding contract. Or you could break the circle and just let them remain on the material plane, as you might if you were trying to intentionally allow a monster loose on a city, or trying to get your erinyes ally to the material plane so that you can engage in part 3 of your nefrarious plan of evil in which part 2 involved "Get this erinyes to the material plane to further our nefarious schemes".

Quote:
And no moral person is going to agree with you that kidnapping and entrapping a sentient being to get it to do something for you is not a hostile act. By the time a wizard can perform a PB, he can also just go and talk to a genie in person. Good luck convincing it to give you buffs while you don't have it trapped, however...

And again I simply disagree. You are intentionally ignoring what you can do when your calling spell, and you are insisting on only the worst applications of in pretty much every way possible, adding things as facts and absolutes that are either not there or are options. This conversation is probably going no where because I believe that your mind was made up from the start, especially since you are actually misquoting, misrepresenting, and declaring outright falsehoods concerning planar binding and its like.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In some settings (Not sure about Golarion) when a character dies they go to the land of their god, and become native to their god's plane.

In such a setting (Say: Forgotten Realms for example) you could easily use Planar Binding to summon your dead. I used it once to summon the party cleric after an almost TPK, and I had him raise himself.


Irontruth wrote:
Rules are part of the setting and vice versa.

This is what I've been saying all along.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

TriOmegaZero wrote:

You look at the falling rules and realize that some people are just that manly that they can jump from a flying platform, smash through a window, and make a perfect combat roll to their feet without dying. And suddenly high level warriors have an alternative to feather fall.

Bonus points if you can name what pop figure did that.

But is that outside of the setting? High level players actually are that manly according to setting when you consider the thing they are able to do.

More realistically, do you follow something the perception rules to the letter and not allow players to see that dinosaur a few football fields away or do you hand it.

Even assuming they grey area (which I put into the original post) you are going to lean one way or the other more often and on more important issues.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

Irontruth wrote:


I guess it might happen in a PFS game, but I can't imagine someone showing up to a game table and saying "but in discussions on the message boards they said it was legal" as an excuse for something being allowed. I think my response as a fellow player or GM would be "then you can use it in a game there."

I've been at tables where this happened and the player walked. Not when I've run, thankfully, but at tables where I came to play.

It is part of the reason I don't game at FLGS.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

Vestrial wrote:
ciretose wrote:
So again I ask, if the player walks up to you and says "I read about how to get +3 to all attributes for 18k in gold, so I did it" do you allow it or not?
The question doesn't make a lot of sense to me. '...so I did it.' Is the player trying to do this during downtime? That's not how the game is played. My answer would be the same for if a player came up to me and said, 'I set up a shop crafting silverware for nobles, I make 15,000k a month using sweatshop labor.' The answer? Roleplay it out.

So he explains clearly where the money and time came from.

Or, as in the example provided originally by the poster, this is what they show up with as a WBL legal character to play in a game starting at a higher level.

You are literally saying you are setting over rules when you are saying what players in your game must do to meet the story requirements.

As to +5 to all attributes not effecting gameplay, I fundamentally disagree with you. Particularly in this instance where we are not talking about high level, we are talking anyone who can afford 18k.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

MendedWall12 wrote:
ciretose wrote:
MendedWall12 wrote:


Ciretose I'm going to need for you to clarify something here, because part of what I'm reading from you may be unintended. Are saying that if somebody (while we're playing, mind you) asks to do something, that I don't think makes sense, but they pull out a rule that allows said thing to happen, what's my next move?

I hate to be nit-picky with you, but at that point, "what makes sense," might have nothing to do with the setting, and have more to do with some sort of perceived sense of mechanics approximating physics.

To use the example actually provided by someone in this thread in another thread, if a player asked to be able to pay a high level caster to bind a genie and force that genie to grant wishes that gave that player higher attributes for a cost of approximately 18,000 gold, would you allow it if they could demonstrate that, RAW, it should be allowed.

No. Not even remotely. I'd point the player to things like the Tome of Clear Thought and explain that the game already has magical items that are specifically created to enhance physical and mental attributes, and they have a pretty hefty cost associated with them. I would also ask them why they believe a caster of a high enough power level to bind genies into their service, and force them to grant wishes, would even grant their lowly-arsed self an audience. In addition I would ask them if they would enjoy some Ritz crackers to go with their cheese, so that we can all partake of the canapes. Finally I would point and laugh, until they felt properly shamed, and were again ready to play the game that everyone at the table had been playing, prior to their ridiculous interruption.

And I would do the same thing.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
ciretose wrote:
MendedWall12 wrote:


Ciretose I'm going to need for you to clarify something here, because part of what I'm reading from you may be unintended. Are saying that if somebody (while we're playing, mind you) asks to do something, that I don't think makes sense, but they pull out a rule that allows said thing to happen, what's my next move?

I hate to be nit-picky with you, but at that point, "what makes sense," might have nothing to do with the setting, and have more to do with some sort of perceived sense of mechanics approximating physics.

To use the example actually provided by someone in this thread in another thread, if a player asked to be able to pay a high level caster to bind a genie and force that genie to grant wishes that gave that player higher attributes for a cost of approximately 18,000 gold, would you allow it if they could demonstrate that, RAW, it should be allowed.

In the end, both rules and setting must be subservient to running a good game. What defines a good game is pretty much a subjective agreement between who's playing and who's running at the time.

I also go by this maxim.. actions have consequences in order to fuel story. With the right prep, I'll allow a player to try such a scheme, AND work the consequences to generate story.

If your question is for an auto-success win to game the rules, than no.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
As to +5 to all attributes not effecting gameplay, I fundamentally disagree with you. Particularly in this instance where we are not talking about high level, we are talking anyone who can afford 18k.

I don't think that Vestrial believes it doesn't affect gameplay. Even I think it affects gameplay. Just as purchasing an alchemist fire affects gameplay, or using Diplomacy to gather some intelligence affects gameplay. If it didn't affect gameplay, why would you do it (this question applies to purchasing alchemist fire as well).

You're really hung up on this though. You might want to walk around outside a little bit. Get some fresh air. Have a jog, or grab some delicious yummy pizza with nice toppings and a glass of tasty tea.

What I said is that it did not disrupt my game, the world didn't implode, it makes sense to me, I listened and looked at what it did and most importantly talked it over with my players. It's very do-able within the rules, as are many other things that are often unusual or even quite powerful (more powerful than this actually, at least in practice).

Lemme point something out here. Nothing in this game is a sure thing. I mean check it out. In This Thread there are people who demand that a Ring of Sustenance is gamebreaking, too cheap, overpowered, etc. It's not suitable for their games, and some of them outright ban the ring entirely (while I don't think the ring is a problem, for it has never been a problem at my tables, I can see how it could affect gameplay in a major way {perhaps moreso than even +2.5 to your base statistics} but I think that's a good thing). Meanwhile in That Thread another guy cannot fathom that people (including the devs) expect people to buy magic items and/or that it would be something that is common in peoples' games (even when the Gamemastering section in the core rulebook says the biggest reason to get gold and treasures is to buy magic items you want).

In a very similar vein is spells that can be made permanent. It a metropolis you're expected to be able to find spellcasters who cast up to 8th level spells for pay relatively easily and you pay by the caster level you want. Permanency isn't overwhelmingly expensive. A +5 enhancement bonus to your attack and damage rolls with greater magic fang made permanent is a total of only 9,100 gp. Roughly the cost of a +2 magic weapon, and since it's caster level 20 it's very hard to dispel at lower levels (even outright impossible), but at low levels it is a +25% chance to hit and may very well double or triple your damage output. This is pretty noteworthy because you could afford such a service in under 20% of your WBL as early as 9th level, but you could potentially grab it much earlier (I just consider 20% of your WBL reasonably affordable).

Now not everyone would allow this even if it is rules legal. Some would allow it at caster level 15 (under the idea that if 8th level spells are easily available then you can reliably find people that can cast it a CL 15). Some would say it was right out. Some would be fine with it but roleplay out the encounter with the casters. Some would insult the player's mother. In fact, it's come up in threads before as one of the things that monks get nice for them (though druids could get their claw and bite attacks boosted as well).

Again, much in the same vein, it's entirely possible to buy scrolls and consumables of spells you simply cannot cast yet, and casting the spell from those scrolls isn't really all that hard (the DC is only CL+1 with you rolling 1d20+CL). A scroll of summon monster V. A mere 1,125 gp, but you can absolutely purchase one to cast when things go fubar. It's not even expensive (in a party of 4 people all chip in 1/4 the price of the scrolls each PC less than a 2nd level potion) but the scroll can summon a creature to aid you that can curbstomp an encounter that is level-appropriate. For example, if a party of 4th level PCs (who can't cast even cast 4th level spells yet, let alone 5th level spells) buys a scroll of summon monster V they can summon a Bralani Azata to a battle to aid them. The summon likely lasts the entire battle and may itself have a higher CR than the battle itself (Bralani's are CR 6, which is quite potent for a APL 4 group).

These are things you can do in the game. Not everyone is going to be comfortable with it. Some people may even view it as being akin to cheating (which I don't agree with but there you have it). I don't see the point in getting worked up over it though, or trying to pick a fight about it with someone in every thread you post in. If that's not cool in your game then good for you. Trying to divide the community on variations of certain fallacies that shall not be named because it offends you solves nothing. Even posters in this thread have seen that even this thread and/or survey is merely a thinly disguised attempt at going down that road again (as is especially evident by how insistent you are on discussing planar binding and wish despite it having very little to do with your topic in regards to settings).

So yes. In summary, for those didn't read the whole thing.
1) Take a deep breath. Have a walk. Enjoy some pizza.
2) There are things that can be exploited (and I don't mean exploited in the negative sense) and whether those things are suitable for an individual group varies.
3) Talk with your players and don't be so uptight.

Have fun folks. I gotta take a shower 'cause I've got friends coming over today to play D&D/Pathfinder.


Ashiel wrote:
And again I simply disagree. You are intentionally ignoring what you can do when your calling spell, and you are insisting on only the worst applications of in pretty much every way possible, adding things as facts and absolutes that are either not there or are options. This conversation is probably going no where because I believe that your mind was made up from the start, especially since you are actually misquoting, misrepresenting, and declaring outright falsehoods concerning planar binding and its like.

I haven't misrepresented anything. I stated the only alignment mentioned in the spell description is evil.

Quote:
School conjuration (calling) [see text]; Level sorcerer/wizard 6, summoner 5; Domain daemon 6, demon (chaos, evil) 6, devil (evil, law) 6, inevitable 6, protean 6

Yes, your gm may let you ignore the mechanics of the spell and let you use diplomacy. That is not RAW. Nowhere in the spell does it list that as a possibility. And this was a discussion about RAW vs setting. You are simply stating that in your setting, you can try to talk your way out of a creature being really pissed that you kidnapped it.

By your rationale, it's ok to kidnap a woman and chain her in your basement to offer her a 'really good deal' to serve you. No? That would be evil, right?

Knock a woman on the head and drag back to cave = bad.
Yank woman into back of van, drive back to house = bad.
Teleport woman into basement = ok.

Makes no sense at all. The means by which you abduct someone has absolutely no bearing on the morality of the action. Yes, in any case you may be able to mitigate the victim's anger at being abducted by offering something really awesome. But that does not change the nature of the initial act.


Vestrial wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
And again I simply disagree. You are intentionally ignoring what you can do when your calling spell, and you are insisting on only the worst applications of in pretty much every way possible, adding things as facts and absolutes that are either not there or are options. This conversation is probably going no where because I believe that your mind was made up from the start, especially since you are actually misquoting, misrepresenting, and declaring outright falsehoods concerning planar binding and its like.

I haven't misrepresented anything. I stated the only alignment mentioned in the spell description is evil.

Quote:
School conjuration (calling) [see text]; Level sorcerer/wizard 6, summoner 5; Domain daemon 6, demon (chaos, evil) 6, devil (evil, law) 6, inevitable 6, protean 6

Both Chaos and Law are mentioned there, but that only counts if you're getting it from the demon or devil domains.

More relevant is the bit at the end saying

Quote:
When you use a calling spell to call an air, chaotic, earth, evil, fire, good, lawful, or water creature, it is a spell of that type.

T

he best target is an efreet since they have 3 wishes, so it's usually going to be a LE spell, if that matters to you.
Djinn can't grant wishes, except for Nobles, who aren't listed as summonable. Marids can, but only 1/year.


ciretose wrote:
So he explains clearly where the money and time came from.

I really don't understand what this means. Do you play your games in the abstract? Do players tell you where their money comes from? In my games, we roleplay. Players earn money. I'm honestly confused by this point.

Quote:

Or, as in the example provided originally by the poster, this is what they show up with as a WBL legal character to play in a game starting at a higher level.

Ok, now this I understand. In a WBL I would only allow money to be spent on items, not services. Mainly as a way to simplify the bookkeeping. This is not a settings/rules decision. Nowhere in the rules does it say, 'players begin with X gold which they can use on anything they want.'

Quote:
You are literally saying you are setting over rules when you are saying what players in your game must do to meet the story requirements.

I don't know what you mean by requirements. If a player want's to achieve something, we roleplay it out. The story hopefully unfolds in an interesting/entertaining way for everyone involved. If they happen to succeed in their quest, cool. If not, cool. Good times were had.

Quote:
As to +5 to all attributes not effecting gameplay, I fundamentally disagree with you. Particularly in this instance where we are not talking about high level, we are talking anyone who can afford 18k.

I thought we were talking about a player using Greater planar binding. By then the +5 really doesn't matter. (It really doesn't matter at any level, tbh, but it matters even less at the high levels) It doesn't matter because the gm has his fingers on the difficulty dial. If the players jack up their stats, that dial gets turned a bit. It's really not hard. Players like having bigger numbers, rolling bigger die, doing more damage, even though the end result is the same power level relative to their enemies. (this is the entire nature of the game)

Is the 18k to hire someone to cast it for them? If so, where does it say in the rules that a mage is available to cast any spell the players might possibly want, precisely when they want? If the players find a mage to cast it, the cost is 18k.(if that's what you're talking about) This is not RAW vs setting. This is RAW requiring setting to determine specifics.


thejeff wrote:
More relevant is the bit at the end saying
Quote:
When you use a calling spell to call an air, chaotic, earth, evil, fire, good, lawful, or water creature, it is a spell of that type.

T

he best target is an efreet since they have 3 wishes, so it's usually going to be a LE spell, if that matters to you.
Djinn can't grant wishes, except for Nobles, who aren't listed as summonable. Marids can, but only 1/year.

The point is not that the spell is [evil], but that the act of abducting a sentient being is, which is why no [good] creatures use the spell and why it does not appear in any [good] domains.


ciretose wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


I guess it might happen in a PFS game, but I can't imagine someone showing up to a game table and saying "but in discussions on the message boards they said it was legal" as an excuse for something being allowed. I think my response as a fellow player or GM would be "then you can use it in a game there."

I've been at tables where this happened and the player walked. Not when I've run, thankfully, but at tables where I came to play.

It is part of the reason I don't game at FLGS.

Something I will always harp on, good communication.

Communicate before the game begins how questions will be resolved. If a player is uncomfortable with it, you can identify the problem before play starts.

Also, if I think a player is doing something because they found an 'exploit' I'm going to ask why they want to do this specifically. If I can mind out the underlying motivation, I can understand what is really happening. If the player is just trying to beat me or the game, I can see what I can do to resolve that and explain I'm not interested in that kind of game.


Vestrial wrote:


I thought we were talking about a player using Greater planar binding. By then the +5 really doesn't matter.

Not Greater. Regular Planar Binding. 6th level spell. Efreet are 10 HD.

Vestrial wrote:
Is the 18k to hire someone to cast it for them? If so, where does it say in the rules that a mage is available to cast any spell the players might possibly want, precisely when they want? If the players find a mage to cast it, the cost is 18k.(if that's what you're talking about) This is not RAW vs setting. This is RAW requiring setting to determine specifics.

There are rules on what spell levels are available in what size settlements and what they cost. There are no rules about limiting which spells are available. Rule 0 always applies though.

You could probably put together a pretty good argument that spells cast by sorcerers, which you'd want to have the high CHA, would be harder to find than wizards. Of course, if this works, I can't imagine any sorcerer not taking it, other than for the moral reasons you raise.

The Exchange

ciretose wrote:
1. Do you agree that this is a fair dividing line (with lots of people who fall into grey areas between on various issues)

Absolutely. I know people who want to play in a certain setting but couldn't care less about the rules system they use to play in said setting. And I know people who play the system first and don't quite care about the setting used with the system. And obviously i know a lot of grey area people.

Quote:
Which side of the debate are you generally on. In other words, do you believe the rules serve the setting or that the setting serves the rules.

Well, I generally choose the setting first and then use the rules supporting the setting. To me, it's not about D&D/PFRPG vs. Shadowrun (the system) but about Golarion vs. Shadowrun (the setting).

The exception being that in the meantime I've come to use the PFRPG even if playing in a TSR/WotC setting but that's just because I'm a lazy person and don't want to relearn the former edition rules.


thejeff wrote:
Not Greater. Regular Planar Binding. 6th level spell. Efreet are 10 HD.

Oh, right. Yeah, it definitely seems like planar binding should get some sort of adjustment.(or the genies) Players really shouldn't have easy access to wish at level 12.

In my world, genies wouldn't grant three Wish spells, they would grant three wishes, which are far more interesting than ordering off a generic menu. (But mind the fine print or end up reliving The Monkey's Paw) ;)

Vestrial wrote:

There are rules on what spell levels are available in what size settlements and what they cost. There are no rules about limiting which spells are available. Rule 0 always applies though.

You could probably put together a pretty good argument that spells cast by sorcerers, which you'd want to have the high CHA, would be harder to find than wizards. Of course, if this works, I can't imagine any sorcerer not taking it, other than for the moral reasons you raise.

Isn't the availability based on settlement something like 'at this size, there is a chance to find X.'? It doesn't guarantee a caster will be available to cast any particular spell at any given level. (Tbh I've never looked at the availability charts. We've never used them in any game in which I play because they make magic items way too run of the mill)

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

@Vestrial - And this is the whole point. If for some reason some rule loophole pops up that gives level 12 players access to wish (or worse, as was proposed if they have saved 18k gold they can pay someone else who has access) you would put the kibosh on it, regardless of whatever RAW citation they can find, because clearly it wasn't intended.

How can you tell it clearly isn't intended? In this case because magic items that do the same thing cost much, much, more.

I'm not saying if you player says they want to do something, you shouldn't as a GM try to find a way to make it happen, within the game through for the proper effort.

What I am saying is if your player has found the equivalent of a glitch in the rules, you as a GM don't have to say "Well, technically the rules don't say dead people can't move, so..."

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

Of course, if this works, I can't imagine any sorcerer not taking it, other than for the moral reasons you raise.

Not every sorcerer has a burning need or desire to truck with the outer planes and their capricious residents.

Silver Crusade

Problem with Planar Binding and Genie summoning?

Well there are two things to discourage that.

1: The player needs to make a Knowledge check to find out information about a creature so you decide what info the player knows. Genie's have so many other things that leaving out the Knowledge of Wish is easy. Now if they have seen a Genie perform a wish then you can skip to number 2.

2: You as the GM can decide whether granting a Wish is a task or not and how the words of the spell are interpreted.


LazarX wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Of course, if this works, I can't imagine any sorcerer not taking it, other than for the moral reasons you raise.

Not every sorcerer has a burning need or desire to truck with the outer planes and their capricious residents.

If it works as advertised, it's not about trucking with the outer planes and their capricious residents.

It's about easy, reliable access to wishes at 12th level.

Silver Crusade

thejeff wrote:


It's about easy, reliable access to wishes at 12th level.

It's not as easy as you think.


shallowsoul wrote:
thejeff wrote:


It's about easy, reliable access to wishes at 12th level.
It's not as easy as you think.

I don't think it's easy at all. I wouldn't allow it.

I'd rather just deny it up front than play games with what you get from Knowledge rolls.

I'm describing the exploit as it's been described to me.

Silver Crusade

thejeff wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
thejeff wrote:


It's about easy, reliable access to wishes at 12th level.
It's not as easy as you think.

I don't think it's easy at all. I wouldn't allow it.

I'd rather just deny it up front than play games with what you get from Knowledge rolls.

I'm describing the exploit as it's been described to me.

Just trying to show you how to handle it by RAW.


wraithstrike wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


I am in the middle. There are some rules that could be broken and not really upset balance, but immersion matters for me also. Thinking you can wishbind in my games is not realistic. I know if I was genie, and I survived/escaped the binder would hate life, or either lose their life.
I'm a bit surprised that everyone assumes that the caster is being a douche to the genie. It's worth nothing that when I actually mentioned this, it was not about forcing the genie to do anything.

I understand you wanted to negoiate with the genie, but the game assumes that binding is a bad thing. That is the difference between planar binding and planar ally. You might ask him after you captured him, but you still captured him first.

It would be like if someone kidnapped you, and then offered you a good deal. Their negotiation terms does not change the fact that you were kidnapped.

Actually, IMHO it would be more like you beamed me up on the enterprise. That's effectively what you're doing if you're doing it without being hostile. I try to place myself in the shoes of someone when I try to think about this things, and the nearest I can come to a conclusion would be similar to an alien encounter without the anal probing.

Basically a space ship coming over someone, beaming them up. Freaky indeed. So you end up in a special room inside an area. The aliens speak a language you understand. "Hey there." they say. "You are currently on our ship in the protection chamber which is for our mutual safety at the moment, because we wanted to ask a favor of you in exchange for some cool alien gifts. See we would like to study the multi-colored substance known as M&Ms and we know you have a pack. Could we convince you to spare some M&Ms in exchange for this piece of solid platinum we picked up? This stuff is just everywhere where we come from, but I understand it's somewhat precious on your world."

SKR said it was a...

That was James Jacobs, not SKR. Darn it. I hate being incorrect about my sources.


The rules serve the setting.

If I had a player suddenly reveal his plan to "get reliable wishes at level 12", I'd tell him "Many magic-users have fallen to such hubris and lust for power. Tread carefully."


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm going to take a moment to not talk about Planar Binding (I feel like I've said enough on the subject, and honestly it's getting done to death). At the end of the day, the rules allow you to do some very powerful and very impressive things. The rules can allow you to produce infinite money, or create entire castles out of thin air (well before 9th level spells are available). It's trivially easy to do so. At the end of the day it is up to each group to decide which portions of the rules are not for them, and which are (and on the forums stick to the rules unless it is noted otherwise).

Once again, the most important thing is communication with your players. Not hostility, not ignoring them, nor bending to their will, but sheer honest communication. See what they want, look at why they want it, see if it makes some sense, is there a mechanical problem with it, will you need homebrew to help it work, and so forth. Not everything that exists in the game is appropriate to every group's play, but the game offers many things should they be.

For example, some people don't even want players to be able to purchase magic items in stores. To them, that's cheesy. Other people would have things like the lyre of building not exist in their worlds because they don't like how useful the thing is at influencing the world instead of combat.

And then others are not going to bat an eyelash when someone uses wall of stone spells to produce tons and tons and tons of stone, makes an intelligent lyre of building with a +10 bonus to Preform (string instruments) to play itself endlessly (or an undead, or construct, or some other thing who can play continuously without getting fatigued) and erect a castle in less than a week. Said group may think it's just part of the game, or they might think it's really super cool that they're awesome enough to build a castle like that.

I won't say any of them are wrong as long as they are having fun.


shallowsoul wrote:
Darkholme wrote:

D&D 3.5 City Nuke.

I just want to say that this was proven not to work. The thread is somewhere on the Wizard's website.

That is not true. The myth of it not working is false.

Locate City Nuke works by RAW.
The Order:
1. Use the Snowcasting Metamagic(Frostburn) feat to give Locate City(RoD) the [Cold] descriptor.

2. the Flash Frost Spell (PHBII) metamagic feat to cause the spell to deal 2 points of cold damage per spell level (In this case, 1, so 2 points of damage).

3. Use the Energy Substitution (Electricity) (CArc) to cause the [Cold] descriptor to change to the [Electricity] descriptor. This may or may not change the 2 points of cold damage to Electricity damage, but it doesn't matter.

4. Apply the Born of Three Thunders (CArc, I think) metamagic feat to this monster of a spell. All it requires is that the spell has the electricity descriptor or the sonic descriptor and deals hit point damage. This causes half of the spell's damage to be electricity damage and half sonic damage, for 1 point of damage each. More importantly, it then gives the targets a Fortitude save in order to avoid being stunned for one round. If they fail this save, they then get a Reflex save to avoid being knocked prone. Both of these saves are at the same save DC as the original spell was.

5. Note that this horrible mishmash of metamagic feats now has a Reflex save.

6. Apply the Explosive Spell(CArc I think) metamagic feat to this thing. On a failed Reflex save, they're ejected to the edge of the spell, taking 1d6 damage for every 10' they traveled.

7. There are 528 10' increments in a mile, and Locate City has a radius of ten miles per level.

9. Get yourself immune to both electrical and sound damage, so YOU don't risk get blown up (Cast Lesser Globe of Invulnerability from a scroll so you'll be immune to the havoc you'll be causing?)

Note: in 3.5, Typically, effects you stack may be stacked in any order, which is typically the order most currently beneficial to you. I believe this was in a PHB FAQ.

You can also apply fell drain from Libris Mortis to apply negative level to all involved (3.5 rules, that means 5 damage from getting a negative level)

Silver Crusade

Starbuck_II wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Darkholme wrote:

D&D 3.5 City Nuke.

I just want to say that this was proven not to work. The thread is somewhere on the Wizard's website.

That is not true. The myth of it not working is false.

Locate City Nuke works by RAW.

Actually no. There was a problem found with one of the feats and the aspect of "radius".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
thejeff wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
thejeff wrote:


It's about easy, reliable access to wishes at 12th level.
It's not as easy as you think.

I don't think it's easy at all. I wouldn't allow it.

I'd rather just deny it up front than play games with what you get from Knowledge rolls.

I'm describing the exploit as it's been described to me.

Just trying to show you how to handle it by RAW.

Arbitrarily deciding that "Genies can grant wishes" is so far down the list of things you can learn with a Knowledge roll that you'll never reach it is ass much an exploit of the rules as any cheesy build players come up with.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

'No you can't chain-bind genies' is perfectly within the rules as well.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
Starbuck_II wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Darkholme wrote:

D&D 3.5 City Nuke.

I just want to say that this was proven not to work. The thread is somewhere on the Wizard's website.

That is not true. The myth of it not working is false.

Locate City Nuke works by RAW.

Actually no. There was a problem found with one of the feats and the aspect of "radius".

And at the end of the day, the question should not be "by RAW does this work." but "By common sense, would I allow it regardless."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
'No you can't chain-bind genies' is perfectly within the rules as well.

I want to see a direct quote from the CRB or another book as proof.

Star Voter 2013

For a non genie-binding example it has been argued over the ability to TWF with only unarmed strikes. For the sake of example lets say that it's ruled you cannot. Would it really make since to have a world wear people can now hit faster by wearing something on their arms or should the common sense realism push the odd rules situation down.


Talonhawke wrote:
For a non genie-binding example it has been argued over the ability to TWF with only unarmed strikes. For the sake of example lets say that it's ruled you cannot. Would it really make since to have a world wear people can now hit faster by wearing something on their arms or should the common sense realism push the odd rules situation down.

I think stuff is often on a case by case basis. I've always allowed two-weapon fighting with unarmed strikes. And in my games I allow extra attacks with unarmed strikes when hasted (even though RAW this is not legal). Like everything else, I first evaluate it, then decide on it. There are no problems that will come from TWFing unarmed strikes so even if it was ruled out RAW it would make a fine house rule.

Shadow Lodge

Icyshadow wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
'No you can't chain-bind genies' is perfectly within the rules as well.
I want to see a direct quote from the CRB or another book as proof.

HOW DOES IT FEEL TO WANT?


It feels...glorious.

Silver Crusade

Icyshadow wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
'No you can't chain-bind genies' is perfectly within the rules as well.
I want to see a direct quote from the CRB or another book as proof.

GM Fiat: The GM is the law of the game. "His" reading

of the rules should be respected and adhered to.

Interpretation is great! Remember, it's "his" reading of the rules and not yours. A DM can easily read Planar Binding a different way and it still be RAW.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
'No you can't chain-bind genies' is perfectly within the rules as well.
I want to see a direct quote from the CRB or another book as proof.

GM Fiat: The GM is the law of the game. "His" reading

of the rules should be respected and adhered to.

Interpretation is great! Remember, it's "his" reading of the rules and not yours. A DM can easily read Planar Binding a different way and it still be RAW.

Well that's false. Being a GM does not mean being right.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

He didn't say anything about being right.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
'No you can't chain-bind genies' is perfectly within the rules as well.
I want to see a direct quote from the CRB or another book as proof.

GM Fiat: The GM is the law of the game. "His" reading

of the rules should be respected and adhered to.

Interpretation is great! Remember, it's "his" reading of the rules and not yours. A DM can easily read Planar Binding a different way and it still be RAW.

That is false. GM's don't decide RAW. They interpret RAW to get RAI.

If the book says you have to wear a blue shirt, and the GM somehow sees red, then by RAW you still have to wear a blue shirt, but for that table you have to wear red.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
He didn't say anything about being right.

Fair enough, but it still doesn't mean it's the rules as written. I can read the RAW and change it as a GM (even says so under the "most important rule") but that doesn't mean that the original way is not RAW.

On a side note, the most important rule says pretty much what I've said all along.

Quote:
The rules presented are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.

It's important the group as a whole enjoys the rules, and the group as a whole should discuss things. It's not just "I'm the GM, I'm right". A good GM realizes that he or she is not infallible and listens, weighs, and experiments.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
That is false. GM's don't decide RAW. They interpret RAW to get RAI.

But their interpretation is still within the rules.

Silver Crusade

wraithstrike wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
'No you can't chain-bind genies' is perfectly within the rules as well.
I want to see a direct quote from the CRB or another book as proof.

GM Fiat: The GM is the law of the game. "His" reading

of the rules should be respected and adhered to.

Interpretation is great! Remember, it's "his" reading of the rules and not yours. A DM can easily read Planar Binding a different way and it still be RAW.

That is false. GM's don't decide RAW. They interpret RAW to get RAI.

If the book says you have to wear a blue shirt, and the GM somehow sees red, then by RAW you still have to wear a blue shirt, but for that table you have to wear red.

So basically you are saying the book is wrong and you are right..

Mmmmmmmmmmmkay.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
That is false. GM's don't decide RAW. They interpret RAW to get RAI.
But their interpretation is still within the rules.

The bolded word is the key here, and it is not synonymous with "written."

Marathon Voter 2013

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

When you turn RAI to mean "Read as Interpreted", things make a lot more sense :D


shallowsoul wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
'No you can't chain-bind genies' is perfectly within the rules as well.
I want to see a direct quote from the CRB or another book as proof.

GM Fiat: The GM is the law of the game. "His" reading

of the rules should be respected and adhered to.

Interpretation is great! Remember, it's "his" reading of the rules and not yours. A DM can easily read Planar Binding a different way and it still be RAW.

That is false. GM's don't decide RAW. They interpret RAW to get RAI.

If the book says you have to wear a blue shirt, and the GM somehow sees red, then by RAW you still have to wear a blue shirt, but for that table you have to wear red.

So basically you are saying the book is wrong and you are right..

Mmmmmmmmmmmkay.

I am saying the books gives you the basic rules, but the GM is allowed to change how the rules work at his table. Changing how they work at your table does not change how they were written.

Are you saying that you can actually change the words in the book?

PS:I did say "for that table", so of course the book is not wrong. The GM just decided to do his own thing. <----I thought that would be obvious.

151 to 200 of 308 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Gamer Life / Gamer Talk / Survey: Do the rules serve the setting or does the setting serve the rules. All Messageboards

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.