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

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


Gamer Talk

251 to 300 of 308 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Ciretose signature complaints about Ashiel - Simulacrum Genie Wish Machine, Dragons Wearing Armor (despite not being mechanically beneficial)and that Ashiel doesn't reveal his gender.

I guess I'm going to have to add planar bound genies to that list.

Ciretose, I should point out that you were the one to originally start complaining about binding genies in this thread and that after reading through it, you reference it again, and again, and again, and again, and again.

You also deliberately lied about Ashiel saying +3 weapons aren't available, but Genie Binding is.

The whole Genie Binding issue came up in a thread about Monks where Ashiel paid 18,000 for spellcasting services to bind Efreeti to grant his Monk wishes to boost his stats.

Ashiel said that if you followed the Gamemastery Guide, then a Metropolis has items up 10 16,000 gp readily available (but only a 75% that a specific item is available). Brain in a Jar had a Monk that had purchased an Amulet of Mighty Fist +3 (45,000 gp) and a Belt of Giant Strength +6 (36,000 gp). According to the rules of the Gamemastery Guide, such items would not be available for purchase in a Metropolis.

However, there were other rules for the challenge, and Brain in a Jar violated them when he attempted to mimic Ashiel's Genie Binding Method in that he spent more money then he had available to do it.

I pointed this all out to you in a PM that you ignored because it shot holes in your argument and didn't agree with you.

Genie Binding for wishes is available in large enough cities by RAW. If you don't like that, then change it. That is your prerogative as a GM in your own games. But banning Genie Bound Wishes is a house rule.

So what you're really doing, is throwing hissy fits because Ashiel doesn't play by your house rules.

You know what? There is a large part of me that wants to just start automatically flagging your posts anytime you complain about Ashiel for one reason or another, just so I can draw attention from the Mods that this attitude of yours is abusive and they need to start MODERATING the boards.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
I'm having a hard time actually seeing what the topic is. You seem very vague about it. You say one thing, then another that contradicts it. You say you're for setting trumps rules, but then when shown that a published setting expects wish granting genies to grant wishes (imagine that) you seem to fall back to a mechanical frustration as to why that must not be. Seems contradictory and inconsistent with the picture you're trying to pain here, at least to me.

No one objects to genies granting wishes. That's a standard fantasy trope. It existing in a published setting does not change the argument.

Combining Planar Binding with wish granting to get infinite free wishes is the problem. If you can find an example of published setting where that was used, then you might have an argument.

If not, then it's still exploiting a loophole in RAW to force a change in the setting. It forces the setting to change, because there's no way to balance the PCs having infinite wishes at 12th level without giving something to the opposition to compensate.

Edit: Actually I screwed what I wanted to quote. Self: Use preview!

The Module Seven Swords of Sin published by Paizo Publishing has a Wizard Enchantress that Bound an Efreeti under her control and uses it for infinite wishes.

In fact I will quote it for you.

Seven Swords of Sin:
"Seven Swords of Sin Page 25: The Wishing Well wrote:

This massive, thirty-foot-tall cavern appears completely natural, save for the ornate circular cistern in its center. The stone lip surrounding this pool is several feet high and made entirely from jade carved in intricate and fanciful swirls, and appears to be the head of a well shaft drilled down into the cavern rock. Inside it, glowing lava bubbles and froths sluggishly, casting a blood red light on the stone walls and occasionally spattering over the sides with a hiss.

Tirana likes to keep her pets comfortable and in this chamber has used magic to seal the room's heat inside it's borders. Anyone crossing into the room is immediately struck by a blast of heat and takes 1d6 points of fire damage per minute (no save) from breathing the 150-degree air. In addition, anyone wearing metal armor or touching a metal weapon is affected as if by a heat metal spell. Characters adjacent to the pool of lava take 2d6 points of fire damage each round as bursts of molten rock spurt out to splash them, and anyone falling in takes 20d6 points of fire damage per round.

Creatures: Upon arriving in this room, the PC's confront two identical red dragons basking in the pool's head. Only one of them is real. Revorax, a very young red dragon who Tirana has raised from hatching, is intensely loyal (most of the time) to his adopted mother. In order to keep him safe and entertained, Tirana has entrusted him with Surnom, her captive efreet, who spends much of his time lurking below the surface of the lava pool. Surnom has a rather low opinion of Recorax but must grant the dragon's wishes. The other dragon in the room is a permanent duplicate image of Revorax created by Surnom to confuse intruders and appeal to Revorax's vanity.

.............

Revorax
TACTICS
During Combat
Recorax takes full advantage of Surnom's ability to grant wishes. Sample wishes might include incendiary cloud, followed by clenched fist and finger of death (or power word stun if a PC ended his turn within reach). If hard pressed, he might use his final wish for scintillating pattern, prismatic spray or summon monster VIII (1d4+1 chain devils, MM 53).

Surnom
TACTICS
During Combat
Surnom emerges from the pool on the first round of combat and hovers near the ceiling (20 feet up), granting Revorax's wishes as well as firing off quickened scorching rays.

Right there, we have a captured Efreet that is forced to grant wishes and is under the control of a Wizard. I should also point out that when I was converting this module over to Pathfinder, I noticed that Tirana's stats are way too high. I wondered, how did this happen?

DOH!

She has an Efreeti that can boost all of her stats!

[Edit]Oops, hit Submit before I was done, also I fixed some typo's above.

So what we have here, is a module published by Paizo, set in Golarion involving a Wizard Binding a Genie to her control and using it for infinite wishes.

ALL YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE INVALID. (just joking around here)

People who want to argue that the setting doesn't permit it have to now realize that Paizo has already allowed it into their setting. It exists. Therefore, it is RAW.


thejeff wrote:

No one objects to genies granting wishes. That's a standard fantasy trope. It existing in a published setting does not change the argument.

Combining Planar Binding with wish granting to get infinite free wishes is the problem. If you can find an example of published setting where that was used, then you might have an argument.

The thing is, this has nothing to do with a setting at all. Just what you and your group is comfortable with.

Quote:
If not, then it's still exploiting a loophole in RAW to force a change in the setting. It forces the setting to change, because there's no way to balance the PCs having infinite wishes at 12th level without giving something to the opposition to compensate.

How does the setting change? Ignoring the mechanical fact there's not a big impact from getting wishes in your downtime (outside of combat it's really only useful for bringing your friends back to life when you die again and/or mimicing low-level spells). Unless you're forcing a low-CR creature (the efreeti) into high level encounters so it can spend its turn granting you wishes, it's not going to be much use (incidentally it can't even do too much in combat against higher level foes because its caster level has difficulties with spell-resistance). But that's neither here nor there at the moment.

What is at the moment is that it's only as important as the group wants it to be. There are many things in the rules beyond coercing genies to grant wishes that have far more impacts on society. It astounds me that someone makes a big deal out of paying or calling for an efreeti to grant you some wishes (with a very nerfed wish spell from what it was), when things like CR 1-2 magical traps that 3rd level adepts can craft would change the world more than a wish ever could.

Somehow genies granting individuals wishes is "breaking the setting" or "doing what was never intended", yet the capability to fill a world with what amounts to infinite energy technology is so trivially easy to do that it has the largest consequences on a setting that you could have. Why would the setting give a turkey that individual X out of billions has an inherent bonus to an ability score, when you can build simple steam-engines that possess infinite fuel sources that could be used at the level of technology that existed pre-Christ without even breaking a sweat. Literally capable of revolutionizing the way the world works on a fundamental level.

Why is this such a big deal when it is entirely just a matter of whether the group is comfortable with the (relatively mild) effects, when by using Craft Wondrous Item and less than 6,000 gp you can build a machine that produces infinite electricity, or infinite steam-power, or some other infinite environmentally friendly power source?

Hell, the moment a GM includes a resetting magic trap in their game, suddenly this question comes up. The moment there's a trap that chucks a lightning bolt down a hallway, suddenly the world has changed on a fundamental level. You can generate energy. Lots, and lots of energy. The first time the party moves through an area that has been overgrown with the plant growth spell, one has to wonder what sort of effect that has on logging operations. When you can create a machine that increases the productivity of crops over a half a mile in every direction by 33% over the course of a year as an instantaneous effect (magic comes, and goes, and can come again) for 7,500 gp.

This topic is not about setting verisimilitude. It's not even about settings. This is a witch hunt in disguise. An excuse to point at others and tell them they are wrong, and appeal to others who aren't comfortable with something in an attempt to prove themselves right. The topic of using planar binding to meet genies and get wishes from them is a mild one compared to the one about the effects that literal infinite creation of energy and its effects on the world has.


Tels wrote:
Ashiel said that if you followed the Gamemastery Guide, then a Metropolis has items up 10 16,000 gp readily available (but only a 75% that a specific item is available). Brain in a Jar had a Monk that had purchased an Amulet of Mighty Fist +3 (45,000 gp) and a Belt of Giant Strength +6 (36,000 gp). According to the rules of the Gamemastery Guide, such items would not be available for purchase in a Metropolis.

Hey Tels, thanks for your post. Also, since I know you like rules, I figured I'd point out I wasn't even talking about the gamemastery guide. It's in the core rulebook. At the very beginning of the Magic Items chapter it discusses purchasing and availability of magic items in the game, and that's where it mentions the 16,000 gp default standard limit. The Gamemastery Guide gives optional rules for adjusting these limits, but the limits are from core. Here is a link to the PRD page that has the limits: PRD-Magic Items. Scroll down to purchasing magic items and you'll see the limits. ^-^

Just thought you would want to know, since you told me you love discussing the nuances of the game. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:

The Module Seven Swords of Sin published by Paizo Publishing has a Wizard Enchantress that Bound an Efreeti under her control and uses it for infinite wishes.

Right there, we have a captured Efreet that is forced to grant wishes and is under the control of a Wizard. I should also point out that when I was converting this module over to Pathfinder, I noticed that Tirana's stats are way too high. I wondered, how did this happen?

DOH!

She has an Efreeti that can boost all of her stats!

Hah, Tels you win everything. You are so getting a cultist of the year award. (^.^)


Ashiel wrote:
Tels wrote:
Ashiel said that if you followed the Gamemastery Guide, then a Metropolis has items up 10 16,000 gp readily available (but only a 75% that a specific item is available). Brain in a Jar had a Monk that had purchased an Amulet of Mighty Fist +3 (45,000 gp) and a Belt of Giant Strength +6 (36,000 gp). According to the rules of the Gamemastery Guide, such items would not be available for purchase in a Metropolis.

Hey Tels, thanks for your post. Also, since I know you like rules, I figured I'd point out I wasn't even talking about the gamemastery guide. It's in the core rulebook. At the very beginning of the Magic Items chapter it discusses purchasing and availability of magic items in the game, and that's where it mentions the 16,000 gp default standard limit. The Gamemastery Guide gives optional rules for adjusting these limits, but the limits are from core. Here is a link to the PRD page that has the limits: PRD-Magic Items. Scroll down to purchasing magic items and you'll see the limits. ^-^

Just thought you would want to know, since you told me you love discussing the nuances of the game. :)

You're right, I always skip over that part :) This makes me happy as I no longer have to boot up my PDF of the Gamemastery Guide for that table, it's right there in my CRB!

Also, that means Brain in a Jar was in violation of the challenge with both his non-Wish Monk and his Wish Monk.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
Tels wrote:

The Module Seven Swords of Sin published by Paizo Publishing has a Wizard Enchantress that Bound an Efreeti under her control and uses it for infinite wishes.

Right there, we have a captured Efreet that is forced to grant wishes and is under the control of a Wizard. I should also point out that when I was converting this module over to Pathfinder, I noticed that Tirana's stats are way too high. I wondered, how did this happen?

DOH!

She has an Efreeti that can boost all of her stats!

Hah, Tels you win everything. You are so getting a cultist of the year award. (^.^)

Thank you my Master. I live to serve in your radiant glory!


Tels wrote:


Ashiel said that if you followed the Gamemastery Guide, then a Metropolis has items up 10 16,000 gp readily available (but only a 75% that a specific item is available). Brain in a Jar had a Monk that had purchased an Amulet of Mighty Fist +3 (45,000 gp) and a Belt of Giant Strength +6 (36,000 gp). According to the rules of the Gamemastery Guide, such items would not be available for purchase in a Metropolis.

You Got that Wrong!

Beyond the listed readily available, you are supposed to roll XdY for how many specific items are 100% avaialable above that limit. The exact idea was there in 3.5 as well, but the variables were changed in pathfinder.

So he could if he ws really lucky buy an AoMF and BoGS.

Quote:


Minor Items/Medium Items/Major Items: This line lists the number of magic items above a settlement's base value that are available for purchase. In some city stat blocks, the actual items are listed in parentheses after the die range of items available—in this case, you can use these pre-rolled resources when the PCs first visit the city as the magic items available for sale on that visit. If the PCs return to that city at a later date, you can roll up new items as you see fit.

Silver Crusade

Tels wrote:

Ciretose signature complaints about Ashiel - Simulacrum Genie Wish Machine, Dragons Wearing Armor (despite not being mechanically beneficial)and that Ashiel doesn't reveal his gender.

I guess I'm going to have to add planar bound genies to that list.

Ciretose, I should point out that you were the one to originally start complaining about binding genies in this thread and that after reading through it, you reference it again, and again, and again, and again, and again.

You also deliberately lied about Ashiel saying +3 weapons aren't available, but Genie Binding is.

The whole Genie Binding issue came up in a thread about Monks where Ashiel paid 18,000 for spellcasting services to bind Efreeti to grant his Monk wishes to boost his stats.

Ashiel said that if you followed the Gamemastery Guide, then a Metropolis has items up 10 16,000 gp readily available (but only a 75% that a specific item is available). Brain in a Jar had a Monk that had purchased an Amulet of Mighty Fist +3 (45,000 gp) and a Belt of Giant Strength +6 (36,000 gp). According to the rules of the Gamemastery Guide, such items would not be available for purchase in a Metropolis.

However, there were other rules for the challenge, and Brain in a Jar violated them when he attempted to mimic Ashiel's Genie Binding Method in that he spent more money then he had available to do it.

I pointed this all out to you in a PM that you ignored because it shot holes in your argument and didn't agree with you.

Genie Binding for wishes is available in large enough cities by RAW. If you don't like that, then change it. That is your prerogative as a GM in your own games. But banning Genie Bound Wishes is a house rule.

So what you're really doing, is throwing hissy fits because Ashiel doesn't play by your house rules.

You know what? There is a large part of me that wants to just start automatically flagging your posts anytime you complain about Ashiel for one reason or another, just so I can draw attention from the Mods that this attitude...

It's already been proven that binding wishes can go either so using it in an argument isn't valid because you need a third party to approve of it. Please don't spread false information about it being 100% without a doubt legal. There is no one sided yes this is how it works no questions asked.


That's a good point. I'm still a bit unsure about that, since the chance of actually rolling a +3 amulet of mighty fists as of Ultimate Equipment is somewhere around .6%.

shallowsoul wrote:
It's already been proven that binding wishes can go either so using it in an argument isn't valid because you need a third party to approve of it. Please don't spread false information about it being 100% without a doubt legal. There is no one sided yes this is how it works no questions asked.

Read the next post down from that one. :P

Silver Crusade

Tels wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
I'm having a hard time actually seeing what the topic is. You seem very vague about it. You say one thing, then another that contradicts it. You say you're for setting trumps rules, but then when shown that a published setting expects wish granting genies to grant wishes (imagine that) you seem to fall back to a mechanical frustration as to why that must not be. Seems contradictory and inconsistent with the picture you're trying to pain here, at least to me.

No one objects to genies granting wishes. That's a standard fantasy trope. It existing in a published setting does not change the argument.

Combining Planar Binding with wish granting to get infinite free wishes is the problem. If you can find an example of published setting where that was used, then you might have an argument.

If not, then it's still exploiting a loophole in RAW to force a change in the setting. It forces the setting to change, because there's no way to balance the PCs having infinite wishes at 12th level without giving something to the opposition to compensate.

Edit: Actually I screwed what I wanted to quote. Self: Use preview!

The Module Seven Swords of Sin published by Paizo Publishing has a Wizard Enchantress that Bound an Efreeti under her control and uses it for infinite wishes.

In fact I will quote it for you.

** spoiler omitted **

...

You do realize that is something for the DM and not the players don't you? Adventures have always been written with bits of handwaving for the benefit of story.

Also, did you notice the wishes were used to cast spells and was only given three Wishes.


shallowsoul wrote:
Tels wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
I'm having a hard time actually seeing what the topic is. You seem very vague about it. You say one thing, then another that contradicts it. You say you're for setting trumps rules, but then when shown that a published setting expects wish granting genies to grant wishes (imagine that) you seem to fall back to a mechanical frustration as to why that must not be. Seems contradictory and inconsistent with the picture you're trying to pain here, at least to me.

No one objects to genies granting wishes. That's a standard fantasy trope. It existing in a published setting does not change the argument.

Combining Planar Binding with wish granting to get infinite free wishes is the problem. If you can find an example of published setting where that was used, then you might have an argument.

If not, then it's still exploiting a loophole in RAW to force a change in the setting. It forces the setting to change, because there's no way to balance the PCs having infinite wishes at 12th level without giving something to the opposition to compensate.

Edit: Actually I screwed what I wanted to quote. Self: Use preview!

The Module Seven Swords of Sin published by Paizo Publishing has a Wizard Enchantress that Bound an Efreeti under her control and uses it for infinite wishes.

In fact I will quote it for you.

** spoiler omitted **

...

You do realize that is something for the DM and not the players don't you? Adventures have always been written with bits of handwaving for the benefit of story.

Also, did you notice the wishes were used to cast spells and was only given three Wishes.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Silver Crusade

Ashiel wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Tels wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
I'm having a hard time actually seeing what the topic is. You seem very vague about it. You say one thing, then another that contradicts it. You say you're for setting trumps rules, but then when shown that a published setting expects wish granting genies to grant wishes (imagine that) you seem to fall back to a mechanical frustration as to why that must not be. Seems contradictory and inconsistent with the picture you're trying to pain here, at least to me.

No one objects to genies granting wishes. That's a standard fantasy trope. It existing in a published setting does not change the argument.

Combining Planar Binding with wish granting to get infinite free wishes is the problem. If you can find an example of published setting where that was used, then you might have an argument.

If not, then it's still exploiting a loophole in RAW to force a change in the setting. It forces the setting to change, because there's no way to balance the PCs having infinite wishes at 12th level without giving something to the opposition to compensate.

Edit: Actually I screwed what I wanted to quote. Self: Use preview!

The Module Seven Swords of Sin published by Paizo Publishing has a Wizard Enchantress that Bound an Efreeti under her control and uses it for infinite wishes.

In fact I will quote it for you.

** spoiler omitted **

...

You do realize that is something for the DM and not the players don't you? Adventures have always been written with bits of handwaving for the benefit of story.

Also, did you notice the wishes were used to cast spells and was only given three Wishes.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Incorrect.

Notice how adventures are for DMs and not players? Don't be mad because somebody found a flaw in you trick.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Wait, wait, wait, so you're saying then, that an 11th level caster (which Tirana is in the module) that has an Efreet bound to her control, it simply being handwaved even though we have an actual rule mechanic that backs it up?

An 11th level Wizard is capable of casting 6th level spells.
Planar Binding is a 6th level spell.
Efreeti can be bound to the service of a Wizard via Planar Binding.
Efreeti can grant up to 3 wishes per day.
An 11th level Wizard has an Efreet bound to her service.

Therefore, logically, the Wizard didn't use Planar Binding to force an Efreet under her control, because it's all being handwaved?

What kind of delusional world are you living in?

I presented to you a Wizard that has an Efreet bound to her service, and there is a viable method using Planar Binding that could accomplish such a thing that she herself can cast, and you're saying such a thing isn't possible and that it instead makes more sense to just handwave it?

Not only that, but Tirana also had her stats boosted above where she should?

He stats in the 3.5 module are Str 12 Dex 16 Con 14 Int 20 Wis 14 Cha 18

The only gear that boosts an ability score is a Headband of Intellect +4. And even if she put her 2 ability score increases into Cha, her scores are well above where they should be. Hell, in Pathfinder, she'd be playing with a 42 Point Buy.

Now let's stop and think about this for a moment. She has an Efreet bound to her services and can giver her a +3 increase to all of her ability scores.

Str 9 Dex 13 Con 11 Int 13 Wis 11 Cha 13.

Str 9 Dex 13 Con 11 Int 17 (+4 headband) Wis 11 Cha 15 (ability increases).

Hmm, starts looking a lot more like an NPCs scores now doesn't it?

Fact is, Tirana the Enchantress bound an Efreet under her control and uses it for infinite wishes. Currently, the Efreet is under orders to grant any wish her dragon requires.

Tirana the Enchantress is set in Golarion.

In Golarion, you can bind a Genie to grant you wishes at 11th level.


To the best of my knowledge, using Planar Binding to gain access to infinite wishes has not been disproven.

Planar Biding allows you to bind up to 12HD creatures.
Efreet are 10HD creatures.
If you bind an Efreet, you can force it to grant you wishes.

Ergo, Planar Bound Efreet Genie Wish Machines of Infinite Wishing Power are legal by the Rules As Written.

Silver Crusade

Tels wrote:

To the best of my knowledge, using Planar Binding to gain access to infinite wishes has not been disproven.

Planar Biding allows you to bind up to 12HD creatures.
Efreet are 10HD creatures.
If you bind an Efreet, you can force it to grant you wishes.

Ergo, Planar Bound Efreet Genie Wish Machines of Infinite Wishing Power are legal by the Rules As Written.

Then I suggest you go back and read through the thread. It was proven that it can be interpreted to work that way and it's been proven not to work that way. It all depends on how the DM interprets the description of the spell.


Misinterpreting a spell doesn't make it not RAW. It's a misinterpretation.

RAW you can bind Efreet.

There is no getting around that.

If I can bind an Efreet, I can force him to grant wishes.

There is no getting around that.

If you want to try and read it in some way that says otherwise, that's your prerogative. Intentionally misinterpreting/misreading a spell doesn't mean your version is correct. Wrong is wrong.


The peasant railgun is not really a good example as there's no rule for velocity of the object that passes down the line. The peasant at the end throws it as an improvised ranged weapon with a range increment of 10 ft. and 1d6 damage.

I prefer the less well-known animal highway. You place any number of animals five feet apart, and traverse the entire line regardless how long it is, as a free action. All you need is enough ride skill to make the free action fast mount and fast dismount.

Animals with statue cast on them still count as animals, so if you put a line of statued animals between all the cities in a nation, you can get anywhere instantly.


Tels wrote:
To the best of my knowledge, using Planar Binding to gain access to infinite wishes has not been disproven.[snip]

Why is this important?

As GM you have final say. If I say it doesn't work it doesn't work.

If you want infinite wish machines then by all means go ahead. Can't force a GM to do this. Page 9 man...page 9.

Silver Crusade

Tels wrote:

Wait, wait, wait, so you're saying then, that an 11th level caster (which Tirana is in the module) that has an Efreet bound to her control, it simply being handwaved even though we have an actual rule mechanic that backs it up?

An 11th level Wizard is capable of casting 6th level spells.
Planar Binding is a 6th level spell.
Efreeti can be bound to the service of a Wizard via Planar Binding.
Efreeti can grant up to 3 wishes per day.
An 11th level Wizard has an Efreet bound to her service.

Therefore, logically, the Wizard didn't use Planar Binding to force an Efreet under her control, because it's all being handwaved?

What kind of delusional world are you living in?

I presented to you a Wizard that has an Efreet bound to her service, and there is a viable method using Planar Binding that could accomplish such a thing that she herself can cast, and you're saying such a thing isn't possible and that it instead makes more sense to just handwave it?

Not only that, but Tirana also had her stats boosted above where she should?

He stats in the 3.5 module are Str 12 Dex 16 Con 14 Int 20 Wis 14 Cha 18

The only gear that boosts an ability score is a Headband of Intellect +4. And even if she put her 2 ability score increases into Cha, her scores are well above where they should be. Hell, in Pathfinder, she'd be playing with a 42 Point Buy.

Now let's stop and think about this for a moment. She has an Efreet bound to her services and can giver her a +3 increase to all of her ability scores.

Str 9 Dex 13 Con 11 Int 13 Wis 11 Cha 13.

Str 9 Dex 13 Con 11 Int 17 (+4 headband) Wis 11 Cha 15 (ability increases).

Hmm, starts looking a lot more like an NPCs scores now doesn't it?

Fact is, Tirana the Enchantress bound an Efreet under her control and uses it for infinite wishes. Currently, the Efreet is under orders to grant any wish her dragon requires.

Tirana the Enchantress is set in Golarion.

In Golarion, you can bind a Genie to grant you wishes at 11th level.

Awww you mad? DM interpretation is where it's at and you are the one who is delusional if you choose to ignore it. Apparently the DM who wrote the adventure decided it worked that watching. The spell is open ended no matter how much you argue it. Just like a DM writing an adventure could interpret Wild Shape and being familiar with an animal. Also, we don't know how the Wizard knew about a genie and the Knowledge checks the Wizard would have to make in order to know a genie can even grant wishes, all of that was hand waved away.

Silver Crusade

Tels wrote:

Misinterpreting a spell doesn't make it not RAW. It's a misinterpretation.

RAW you can bind Efreet.

There is no getting around that.

If I can bind an Efreet, I can force him to grant wishes.

There is no getting around that.

If you want to try and read it in some way that says otherwise, that's your prerogative. Intentionally misinterpreting/misreading a spell doesn't mean your version is correct. Wrong is wrong.

Can you prove who is misinterpreting the spell? Get a designer here to tell us your interpretation is the correct one and the argument stops but until then it can go either way.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

So basically, your entire argument is "I said so" instead of coming up with any facts to prove me wrong?

So I'm arguing with a religious fanatic then.

Funny thing is, I already gave you a scenario where Paizo put their stamp of approval for a Wizard to have an infinite wish machine. That means, Paizo and the Pathfinder Development Team have already OK'd infinite wishes.

So, since Paizo has already OK'd it, and you want to say it's wrong, the Burden of Proof is now on your shoulders to prove me wrong, not on my shoulders to prove Paizo right.

RAW allows you to bind Efreet.
RAW allows you force Efreet to do things.

You are challenging this claim which is already a fact. Therefore, you must prove that one can't force the Efreet to grant wishes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What? Open ended spell? In the spell description it tells you exactly what it's capable of. One of the things it's capable of is binding efreeti.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's almost like the Den in here.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

You shut your mouth.


@Tels
I ask again.
Why is this a problem in a game with a supervisor with full control over the rules and game world?

RAW you can bind genies.
So what? BAM I just undid it in my game. BAM I just reinstated it. BAM all genies are now dolphins. BAM said dolphins just founded a fascist interplanetary empire bent on subjugating their hated manatee neighbours.

BAM.

What's the problem?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is mentioning it akin to saying Hastur three times?

Silver Crusade

Aratrok wrote:
What? Open ended spell? In the spell description it tells you exactly what it's capable of. One of the things it's capable of is binding efreeti.

The spell is open ended because the DM can interpret the wording on the spell when it comes to what exactly constitutes as a service.


I've got to say it does look like Paizo intended it to work that way. Seems weirdly broken to me, and I'd still not allow it.

Oddly, I'm less bothered by the "Summon one and keep it bound" approach than the "Summon one everytime you need it and do a quick deal" version. It seems to match the trope better? Also leaves open the possibility of it escaping/being freed and trying for revenge. I'd probably add a way for that to happen into the module.
Seems like every one who can should get one. Are there any drawbacks?


shallowsoul wrote:
Aratrok wrote:
What? Open ended spell? In the spell description it tells you exactly what it's capable of. One of the things it's capable of is binding efreeti.
The spell is open ended because the DM can interpret the wording on the spell when it comes to what exactly constitutes as a service.

No, they really can't. Here's what a service is.

Definition of Service wrote:
1. an act of helpful activity; help; aid: to do someone a service.

So pretty much anything they're capable of. Your demanded service could be "give me all your stuff" if you wanted it to be.

Unless you're suggesting that GMs can change the dictionary definition of words.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dreihaddar wrote:

@Tels

I ask again.
Why is this a problem in a game with a supervisor with full control over the rules and game world?

RAW you can bind genies.
So what? BAM I just undid it in my game. BAM I just reinstated it. BAM all genies are now dolphins. BAM said dolphins just founded a fascist interplanetary empire bent on subjugating their hated manatee neighbours.

BAM.

What's the problem?

You're missing all the information here. This isn't about whether or not a player would actually do this in game, it's about Ciretose hates Ashiel with an unbridled burning passion.

Ciretose and Ashiel have a history you may not be aware of. Ashiel posts in numerous threads, while Ciretose stalks him on the forums so he can misquote Ashiel or blatantly lie to make Ashiel look like a bagwrongfun gamer whose only desire is to destroy the very foundation of gaming we rely on. /exaggeration

For instance, Ashiel once talked about a scenario involving a dragon wearing leather armor 'because the dragon thought it looked cool'. The leather armor gives the dragon a +2 armor bonus and +2 dex bonus (dragon had a 14 dex) for a total increase of +4 to his AC. The dragon also has Mage Armor as a spell, which gives a +4 armor bonus, and he gets to keep his Dex bonus for a +6 total AC increase. Mage Armor doesn't stack with Leather Armor, so even if he cast Mage Armor, the dragon still only gets the +4 from the spell, but not the +2 from the armor.

However, Ciretose is very found of using 'dragons wearing armor' as one of the methods that Ashiel uses to power game the system to destroy the world. /exaggeration.

===================================

The current Planar Binding schtick came about in a Monk thread.

In it, Ashiel was asked to give a build for a Monk. Ashiel included 18,000 gp worth of spellcasting expenses, which was used to Planar Bind an Efreet to boost the Monks stats.

The challenge for the build was:

Brain in a Jar wrote:

20 Points

13th level
140,000 gold only using 33% on a single item
Using Core UM UC APG

Plus it helps show the difference between a Core Monk and one one that's allowed other books.

I'll post a 13th Core Monk soon.

Ashiel followed the rule of the challenge, and the rules of the CRB in that you couldn't reliably find any item over 16,000 gp in a metropolis. Everything Ashiel had was under 16,000 gp.

Ciretose threw a hissy fit over Ashiel spending money for spellcasting services for the Wishes.

So now we have this thread, where Ciretose as mentioned again, and again, and again, and again the Planar Bound Genie Wishes, even in the original post. But keep in mind, this thread isn't a place for Ciretose to bash on Ashiel.

Nope, this thread is about rules serving the setting, or the setting serving the rules. /sarcasm

Anyway, thejeff asked for a published scenario involving a wizard that bound a genie for infinite wishes. I gave such a scenario. Now shallowsoul is trying to say it doesn't count. Why? I'm not sure. I just think he doesn't like the fact that Planar Binding Genies for Wishes is an approved tactic by Paizo.

Personally, I wouldn't allow a PC to have an Efreet minion that follows him around granting wishes. But I would allow a PC to use such a method to gain access to Wish spells if he really needed one, as long as there is the understanding between us that such a method shall not be abused.


So what other abuses are there, other than ability boosts and free true resurrection?

Any arcane 8th level non-combat spell? Greater Planar Binding is 8th. Anything useful there? The toughest things have high CHA, so would be hard to control. Elder Elementals would be easy. Only CR 11, but at 11-12th lvl having a few of them along is a nice bonus. If you've really boosted your CHA, go for a Planetar. That'll be useful in combat at that level.

Create Demi-plane is only 8th.

What else?

Silver Crusade

Two more things to prevent this from happening.

The kind of creature to be bound must be known and
stated. If you wish to call a specific individual, you must use that
individual’s proper name in casting the spell.

1: DM determines what constitutes as "Known".

2: All genie's in a DM's world have specific names that must be known and spoken as part of the spell.

States no where that a Knowledge check will help you get this information, that would be for the DM to decide.

Silver Crusade

Tels wrote:
Dreihaddar wrote:

@Tels

I ask again.
Why is this a problem in a game with a supervisor with full control over the rules and game world?

RAW you can bind genies.
So what? BAM I just undid it in my game. BAM I just reinstated it. BAM all genies are now dolphins. BAM said dolphins just founded a fascist interplanetary empire bent on subjugating their hated manatee neighbours.

BAM.

What's the problem?

You're missing all the information here. This isn't about whether or not a player would actually do this in game, it's about Ciretose hates Ashiel with an unbridled burning passion.

Ciretose and Ashiel have a history you may not be aware of. Ashiel posts in numerous threads, while Ciretose stalks him on the forums so he can misquote Ashiel or blatantly lie to make Ashiel look like a bagwrongfun gamer whose only desire is to destroy the very foundation of gaming we rely on. /exaggeration

For instance, Ashiel once talked about a scenario involving a dragon wearing leather armor 'because the dragon thought it looked cool'. The leather armor gives the dragon a +2 armor bonus and +2 dex bonus (dragon had a 14 dex) for a total increase of +4 to his AC. The dragon also has Mage Armor as a spell, which gives a +4 armor bonus, and he gets to keep his Dex bonus for a +6 total AC increase. Mage Armor doesn't stack with Leather Armor, so even if he cast Mage Armor, the dragon still only gets the +4 from the spell, but not the +2 from the armor.

However, Ciretose is very found of using 'dragons wearing armor' as one of the methods that Ashiel uses to power game the system to destroy the world. /exaggeration.

===================================

The current Planar Binding schtick came about in a Monk thread.

In it, Ashiel was asked to give a build for a Monk. Ashiel included 18,000 gp worth of spellcasting expenses, which was used to Planar Bind an Efreet to boost the Monks stats.

The challenge for the build was:

Brain in a Jar wrote:

20 Points

13th level
140,000 gold
...

Paying for wishes isn't a guaranteed thing because all DM's do not interpret the spell the same. You can't assume that a DM is going to allow it. That would be like someone posting a build on here with artifacts because a DM "could" give them to you during a campaign.


Tels wrote:

The challenge for the build was:

Brain in a Jar wrote:

20 Points

13th level
140,000 gold only using 33% on a single item
Using Core UM UC APG

Plus it helps show the difference between a Core Monk and one one that's allowed other books.

I'll post a 13th Core Monk soon.

Ashiel followed the rule of the challenge, and the rules of the CRB in that you couldn't reliably find any item over 16,000 gp in a metropolis. Everything Ashiel had was under 16,000 gp.

Ah yes. I thought I remembered that. It did seem a bit off to complain about spending more than 16K on a single item when the specific terms of the challenge said "Only using (33% of 140,000=46,200) on a single item." Obviously for this particular challenge that supersedes the general rule.

Tels wrote:
Personally, I wouldn't allow a PC to have an Efreet minion that follows him around granting wishes. But I would allow a PC to use such a method to gain access to Wish spells if he really needed one, as long as there is the understanding between us that such a method shall not be abused.

Anyway, the whole point is that the method is designed for abuse. Starting out with +5 to all stats and moving on from there.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:

Two more things to prevent this from happening.

The kind of creature to be bound must be known and
stated. If you wish to call a specific individual, you must use that
individual’s proper name in casting the spell.

1: DM determines what constitutes as "Known".

2: All genie's in a DM's world have specific names that must be known and spoken as part of the spell.

States no where that a Knowledge check will help you get this information, that would be for the DM to decide.

Don't do this. Ban the thing if you want to. The GM doesn't need to come up with clever rules hacks to ban things. He can just say no.

You're already changing the rules of Planar Binding. The rules say you only need a proper name if you're trying for a specific individual. If you don't use a name, you get a random one. Just because they all have specific names, doesn't mean you can't bind a random one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:

Two more things to prevent this from happening.

The kind of creature to be bound must be known and
stated. If you wish to call a specific individual, you must use that
individual’s proper name in casting the spell.

1: DM determines what constitutes as "Known".

2: All genie's in a DM's world have specific names that must be known and spoken as part of the spell.

States no where that a Knowledge check will help you get this information, that would be for the DM to decide.

No, actually, you're now trying to interpret the text in a way that prevents this from being done.

1) Known and stated eh? "I SUMMON FORTH AN EFREET"

Done.

2) No, actually, you don't have to know a specific creatures name to use the spell. If I know a specific Efreets name, I can repeatedly summon that specific Efreet. However, I'm not doing that. I'm simply going to bind any Efreet I can.

A) I start casting the spell.
B) My target is an Efreet.
C) Any Efreet will do so I don't need to name a specific one.
D) The Efreet gets a Save to resist my Binding.
E) If he fails the save, I have Called an Efreet into my trap.
F) I can new enter negotiations with the Efreet.

Silver Crusade

thejeff wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

Two more things to prevent this from happening.

The kind of creature to be bound must be known and
stated. If you wish to call a specific individual, you must use that
individual’s proper name in casting the spell.

1: DM determines what constitutes as "Known".

2: All genie's in a DM's world have specific names that must be known and spoken as part of the spell.

States no where that a Knowledge check will help you get this information, that would be for the DM to decide.

Don't do this. Ban the thing if you want to. The GM doesn't need to come up with clever rules hacks to ban things. He can just say no.

You're already changing the rules of Planar Binding. The rules say you only need a proper name if you're trying for a specific individual. If you don't use a name, you get a random one. Just because they all have specific names, doesn't mean you can't bind a random one.

I'm not changing the rules of Planar Binding, what I posted was perfectly with in the RAW.

"Impossible demands or unreasonable
commands are never agreed to."

DM can easily say that Wish hacking is considered unreasonable and therefore doesn't work "according to the spell".

So it's okay for player's to find loopholes to exploit the system but it's not okay for a DM to find ways to shut those exploits down unless he does it through GM fiat?

"You can attempt to compel the
creature to perform a service by describing the service and perhaps
offering some sort of reward. You make a Charisma check opposed
by the creature’s Charisma check. The check is assigned a bonus of
+0 to +6 based on the nature of the service and the reward."

DM can easily say this doesn't constitute as a service. The player doesn't get to decide how this spell is going to work, that is up to the DM.

Silver Crusade

Tels wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

Two more things to prevent this from happening.

The kind of creature to be bound must be known and
stated. If you wish to call a specific individual, you must use that
individual’s proper name in casting the spell.

1: DM determines what constitutes as "Known".

2: All genie's in a DM's world have specific names that must be known and spoken as part of the spell.

States no where that a Knowledge check will help you get this information, that would be for the DM to decide.

No, actually, you're now trying to interpret the text in a way that prevents this from being done.

1) Known and stated eh? "I SUMMON FORTH AN EFREET"

Done.

2) No, actually, you don't have to know a specific creatures name to use the spell. If I know a specific Efreets name, I can repeatedly summon that specific Efreet. However, I'm not doing that. I'm simply going to bind any Efreet I can.

A) I start casting the spell.
B) My target is an Efreet.
C) Any Efreet will do so I don't need to name a specific one.
D) The Efreet gets a Save to resist my Binding.
E) If he fails the save, I have Called an Efreet into my trap.
F) I can new enter negotiations with the Efreet.

That doesn't constitute as known in my game which is still with in the RAW. Also, in my games Efreet all have specific names and titles so you must know their specific name.

All with in the RAW.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

To change the definition of service to fit your desire you must first bind the demon lord of words, Ox'Ford and compel him to do it for you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

GM can also say the sky is magenta, it rains lemon juice, humans poop strawberries while elves poop cantalopes.

Your entire argument is, "I'm changing the rules because I'm the GM because I can't prove the others incorrect using the non-GM altering rules in the game"

It's a cop out.

Fact is, you can bind Genies for Wishes. The only way you can't do this, is if the GM changes the rules of the game specifically to disallow this method.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:

That doesn't constitute as known in my game which is still with in the RAW. Also, in my games Efreet all have specific names and titles so you must know their specific name.

All with in the RAW.

So now you're using HOUSE RULES to prove RAW RULE incorrect?

REALLY?

This is just... wow. I mentioned that it was like arguing with a religious fanatic before, but now you've just proven it really is like arguing with a fanatic.

I can't prove you wrong by RAW, because you're following the House Rules of your game not the actual rules of the game.

Silver Crusade

Tels wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

Two more things to prevent this from happening.

The kind of creature to be bound must be known and
stated. If you wish to call a specific individual, you must use that
individual’s proper name in casting the spell.

1: DM determines what constitutes as "Known".

2: All genie's in a DM's world have specific names that must be known and spoken as part of the spell.

States no where that a Knowledge check will help you get this information, that would be for the DM to decide.

No, actually, you're now trying to interpret the text in a way that prevents this from being done.

1) Known and stated eh? "I SUMMON FORTH AN EFREET"

Done.

2) No, actually, you don't have to know a specific creatures name to use the spell. If I know a specific Efreets name, I can repeatedly summon that specific Efreet. However, I'm not doing that. I'm simply going to bind any Efreet I can.

A) I start casting the spell.
B) My target is an Efreet.
C) Any Efreet will do so I don't need to name a specific one.
D) The Efreet gets a Save to resist my Binding.
E) If he fails the save, I have Called an Efreet into my trap.
F) I can new enter negotiations with the Efreet.

"The kind of creature to be bound must be known and

stated. If you wish to call a specific individual, you must use that
individual’s proper name in casting the spell."

Not everyone runs efreet the same in their games. Like I said, all Efreet in my games are specific individuals so they would require you to know their specific name.

If all DM's were universal then your simple argument would work but they aren't I'm afraid and you don't have any proof that says your way is the right and true way. It may be the right and true way in "your" games but not in everyone else's.

"Known" has a wide range of definitions and synonyms. It can be anything from having small knowledge to having to be familiar, or they are well-known. Show me in the description of the spell which interpretation of the word "Known" is meant.

Silver Crusade

Tels wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

That doesn't constitute as known in my game which is still with in the RAW. Also, in my games Efreet all have specific names and titles so you must know their specific name.

All with in the RAW.

So now you're using HOUSE RULES to prove RAW RULE incorrect?

REALLY?

This is just... wow. I mentioned that it was like arguing with a religious fanatic before, but now you've just proven it really is like arguing with a fanatic.

I can't prove you wrong by RAW, because you're following the House Rules of your game not the actual rules of the game.

Nope. Still with in the scope of pure RAW. Just like I decide what magic items are in towns and cities in my games and if there are even large towns and cities in my games. That is not a house rule. A house rule is changing a rule that has a clear and defined intent which Planar Binding does not. You may argue it does but you can't prove that your argument is right while mine is wrong.

Silver Crusade

Aratrok wrote:
To change the definition of service to fit your desire you must first bind the demon lord of words, Ox'Ford and compel him to do it for you.

The prove where my interpretation is wrong?

Please show me in the spell where I am wrong and you are right? Are the designers sitting next to you whispering the true intentions on the spell in your ear?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm just... I'm flabbergasted by how ridiculously stubborn you are. The rules are right there. Multiple people have given the exact citations and logic to prove you wrong, but you still can't accept the possibility that you're wrong about anything.

I'm done trying to argue with you. This post will probably get deleted but you are the worst type of person to meet on a forum. Good god.


Show me the writing in the book that says, if a creature has a name, you must speak it's name to summon it.

No, seriously, I'll wait. Show me.

Oh? Whats that? It doesn't. Oh, that's a shame.

Planar Binding says the creature must be known (an Efreet]) for you to summon it.

If you want to summon a specific creature, you must speak that specific creatures name.

So if I wanted to summon Lord Iriloth, Rule of the Lava Wastes on the Elemental Plane of Fire, I most know his name and speak it during the summons.

But if I just want to summon any Efreet, I can. I don't have to know their name, I just have to know that I want to summon an Efreet.

You've already changed the rules by specifying that you must know the name and speak the name of any Efreet in order to summon it. That's not how the spell works, but it is how it works in your game. Hence the term 'house rule'.


I could care less about whatever meta-argument is going on here.
I do find the assumption that Efreet would just sit around and let their people be kidnapped one by one by some mortal punk abit silly.
Can't they planeshift at will?

So you call one and force the wishes. Great. Then you do it again, and again. And that efreet tells another efreet who tells another and then (due to them being familiar with where they keep being called to) they all planeshift into your apartment and wreck face.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dreihaddar wrote:

I could care less about whatever meta-argument is going on here.

I do find the assumption that Efreet would just sit around and let their people be kidnapped one by one by some mortal punk abit silly.
Can't they planeshift at will?

So you call one and force the wishes. Great. Then you do it again, and again. And that efreet tells another efreet who tells another and then (due to them being familiar with where they keep being called to) they all planeshift into your apartment and wreck face.

Sure, that's a consequence of doing such a thing. Specifically, Ashiel's Monk in the Monk thread was to work out a deal in such a way that if the Efreet granted his wishes, he would then make wishes that would benefit the Efreet too.

So Efreet bumps all of the Monk's ability scores. Then, in turn, the Monk makes wishes that bumps the Wish granters ability scores.

Now both the Efreet and the Monk have increased ability scores. Everyone is happy. Except the enemies of the Efreet and Monk.

Such an Efreet would likely return to his plane and tell all of his Efreet friends about this Monk that is willing to use the Efreets wishes for to the Efreets personal gain. Suddenly all the friends of the Efreet are seeking out this Monk wishing to be friends with him for their own personal gain.


Tels wrote:

Sure, that's a consequence of doing such a thing. Specifically, Ashiel's Monk in the Monk thread was to work out a deal in such a way that if the Efreet granted his wishes, he would then make wishes that would benefit the Efreet too.

So Efreet bumps all of the Monk's ability scores. Then, in turn, the Monk makes wishes that bumps the Wish granters ability scores.

Now both the Efreet and the Monk have increased ability scores. Everyone is happy. Except the enemies of the Efreet and Monk.

Such an Efreet would likely return to his plane and tell all of his Efreet friends about this Monk that is willing to use the Efreets wishes for to the Efreets personal gain. Suddenly all the friends of the Efreet are seeking out this Monk wishing to be friends with him for their own personal gain.

You know, I can't buy that trick. It's too easy a hack around the "Grant Wish" clause. If it was that easy, the efreet would have figured it out long ago. They'd be kidnapping wimpy humans and forcing them to wish for them full time. No need to wait for some dangerous adventurer to figure it out.

251 to 300 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.