Gigigidge's page

Gigigidge wrote:

Additional corrections for Lucrecia:

• The following spells should add +2 to their DCs from her fey bloodline arcana: hold person (s/b DC 21), daze (s/b DC 19)
  
• Her Acrobatics should be +23 (she should get a +4 racial bonus from the Lamia Matriarch errata from Bestiary 2)
  
• She has 4 unspent skill points (unless I'm doing something wrong, but I've gone through her skills three times now and this is the number I keep coming up with)
  
• She should have seven languages (4 starting + 3 from Linguistics) but she only has six listed. (I gave her Varisian as the extra language.)
  

Right on all counts. Additionally, she should probably have her skill with Use Magic Device mentioned since lamia matriarch's have a +4 racial bonus in them. In fact, that's exactly where I've decided to spend those 4 unspent skill points (since it's a trained only skill anyway), resulting in a UMD bonus of +18 (4 points + 3 class + 4 racial + 7 CHA).

Hmmmm...I don't know what I did with them (I think I distributed them among other unmaxed skills), but I like your idea better. I'm moving them there.

Additional corrections for Lucrecia:

• The following spells should add +2 to their DCs from her fey bloodline arcana: hold person (s/b DC 21), daze (s/b DC 19)
  
• Her Acrobatics should be +23 (she should get a +4 racial bonus from the Lamia Matriarch errata from Bestiary 2)
  
• She has 4 unspent skill points (unless I'm doing something wrong, but I've gone through her skills three times now and this is the number I keep coming up with)
  
• She should have seven languages (4 starting + 3 from Linguistics) but she only has six listed. (I gave her Varisian as the extra language.)
  

Gigigidge wrote:

Mark, if you're happen to see this thread, I have one more question: how would you recommend handling the enhancement bonus for something like a solar or a pit fiend?

I don't see them as using the ABP table, as they don't actually have levels. The easiest approach I can think of that preserves the maths and doesn't require breaking the "magic items don't give modifiers" is to give any creature without class levels that has "signature" armor or weapons the equivalent of an attunement bonus that doesn't stack with the attunement bonuses from levels. If they do gain levels, they use the higher of their inherent attunement bonus or their level attunement bonus.

Or is their something I'm missing in the Pathfinder Unchained? Or would you have a different recommendation?

Yeah, those guys with weapons in the monster statblock and no class levels don't use ABP. Their items are baked into the assumptions of the creature, and I'd do it pretty much exactly like you did.

Thanks again Mark!

Mark, if you're happen to see this thread, I have one more question: how would you recommend handling the enhancement bonus for something like a solar or a pit fiend?

I don't see them as using the ABP table, as they don't actually have levels. The easiest approach I can think of that preserves the maths and doesn't require breaking the "magic items don't give modifiers" is to give any creature without class levels that has "signature" armor or weapons the equivalent of an attunement bonus that doesn't stack with the attunement bonuses from levels. If they do gain levels, they use the higher of their inherent attunement bonus or their level attunement bonus.

Or is their something I'm missing in the Pathfinder Unchained? Or would you have a different recommendation?

Yup. And feel free to use the weapon and armor rules from the Unleashing Unchained blog if you prefer them. I actually do, but the math was too complex to be the one we released if we had to choose, and there was no space for both.

Thanks again Mark!

I think as soon as I can convince our group to try this system, I'm going to go with the blog one. I can see players (myself included, at least in some cases) not wanting to give up the AC and Attack bonuses for armor and weapons for a lot of the special abilities. Unless I'm misunderstanding the intent of the table and how it works, the blog approach provides a workaround for that if players are willing to spend the gold.

I'd give an NPC PC level-1, since they are one CR lower. This is a boost for NPCs, who frankly needed the boost, but had no way to get the boost without giving the PCs too much money for beating them.

Thanks for the quick reply, Mark.

I actually like this system and your suggestion a lot because one solution solves two problems. It not only gets rid of the big 6 in a way that's relatively easy to implement, but it also gives a back door boost to NPCs with class levels, which I agree is really needed. (I actually though that might be an intended side effect of the system—thanks for confirming my suspicions on that.)

I want to start by saying I love that Unchained gave us at least two options for replacing the big 6, and my personal favorite of the two is the Automatic Bonus Progression system (although I'm not 100% sold on the way the weapons & armor component works, but I'll give it a chance before I decide).

However, I'm not sure how the Automatic Bonus Progression system should work for NPCs to consistently keep something close to the current PC/NPC balance of power.

1. Just having 50% items and no progression on the table, NPCs will never get basic bonuses, which would seem to shift the balance of power to the PCs.

2. Back-of-the-envelope math, it seems like NPCs who use the same table progression as PCs would gain quite a bit under these rules relative to where they stand today. For example, a standard 10th level NPC would have, just earned at 10th level, the equivalent of a ring of protection +2 and a cloak of resistance +3, worth about 17K, or almost twice his NPC gear value per table 14-9 in the CRB. This would seem to shift the balance of power to the NPCs.

3. Using PC level - 2 (or 1, or 3, or 6, etc.) gets closer , but unless you use different adjustments at different levels, it changes the balance of power at different points, since NPC wealth currently scales more slowly than actual wealth.

1 is probably the closest to RAW, although 2 could be if you took "character" to mean both PCs and NPCs, but as indicated above, those both change the PC/NPC balance of power. However, I'd be leaning towards option 3 (which is admittedly a house rule, since there's no text to support it in Unchained) or even an Option 4—create a modified version of the table to most closely follow the progression that would be allowed based on the current NPC gear value table (again, admittedly a house rule).

My question, though, before I assume I need to "fix" the PC/NPC balance of power "problem" somehow, is there official errata or an FAQ addressing this (so possibly no need for "fix")? Or am I missing something in how this is supposed to work (so possibly no need to address a PC/NPC balance of power "problem")?

LazarX wrote:

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Anybody remember the time people found out that Chik-Fil-A donated money to groups that advocated for the execution of homosexuals and then social media caused a huge boycott that drove them out of business?

And this plus your nonsense question about bigots outnumbering the oppressed means what? That the idea of fighting such evil is nonsense? That every oppressed minority should just roll over and take it, because it won't change, and they are in the wrong anyway because they are a minority, and majority makes right?

There are some folks in Fergueson, Selma, and Stonewall who beg to disagree.

I think he was saying that in response to the claim that bigoted businesses would simply be driven out of business so the law doesn't matter.

That's how I read it as well, Yuugasa. If the bigots sufficiently outnumber the oppressed (with the unspoken assumption that everyone else is indifferent), then boycotts alone will never be enough to effect real change.

In response to earlier comments about how this law won't affect critical things like receiving health care, this:

http://www.indystar.com/story/behind-closed-doors/2015/03/09/eskenazi-healt h-opposes-religious-freedom-bill/24502571/

No, this isn't the super-secret-squirrel assessment delineating in detail how the law will force hospitals to leave gay people to die in dark corners of waiting rooms just because they are gay. But maybe, just maybe, the certainty that some people have that this law will have "no effect" on critical services is a just a bit premature...

Xaratherus wrote:

bbangerter wrote:

digitalpacman wrote:

Thanks, this is exactly what I am trying to say.

I think the best interpretation is to allow them to adjust their attack to have a 5 ft step in it. And, if the character has movement left, to continue their movement. The issue will still exist when people approach each other using 5 ft steps (like you would in boxing) but I'll just deal. My players aren't interested in using this strat anyway. They consider it cheating.

Here is the thing. You are already allowed to take a 5' step as part of a full attack (no new rules needed). This shows that your theoretical invincible defender using readied actions doesn't actually work. It might buy the defender a round or two till their opponent catches on, but unless the attacker is mindless in its tactics they can foil it, and actually make the defenders position worse then if they'd not used this tactic to begin with.

Also importantly (and repeatedly), this hypothetical "5-foot step invincibility" can be negated by a crossbow, or a longbow, or a thrown dagger, or a breath weapon, or a spell - any one of a thousand different ranged options that are available to casters and martial warriors both. Heck, even if you want to stick to melee, as long as you've got a BAB of +1 you can drop your current weapon and draw something with reach as part of your move action, and suddenly that 5-foot step doesn't put the defender out of range anymore.

That's a moot point, because melee vs melee happens. Often. Any time you fight an animal with 5ft reach. Many, MANY, creatures do not have reach or ranged attacks. This tactic even existing in pathfinder means a level 1 commoner can defeat, or permanently defend against, a dire bear.

Until the dire bear spends one round taking only a move action and no attack to get next to the commoner, at which point the commoner's tactic no longer works.

Tyrannon wrote:

I agree with the vast majority who have said to use common sense.

I'm unclear on how 7 out of 16 people qualifies as "the vast majority."

Is "common sense math" different from regular math?

Use Common Sense = Claxon, LazarX, Ton Foil Yamakah, Hendelbolaf, Vod Canockers, Gerrinson, and you (7).
Fix By Rule = Mech E, LoneKnave, CWheezy, Rynjin, Chengar Qodarth, Caedwyr, ShadeofRed, Snorter, and myself (9).

I never stated as such, but you can add me to the "fix by rule" group.

Although in the meantime, I just do my best to house rule this kind of stuff using ideas like common sense to keep the game fun and playable for everyone at the table, DM and players alike. (And of course what your table finds fun might vary!)

P.S. I’m pretty sure DrDeth would be in the "fix by rule" group as well.

While DrDeth is condescending to people using the rules as written to do powerful things, simulacrum is a spell I have to ban because it is amazingly, super broken.

I had players for coliseum morpheon spend money on simulacrums of two pit fiends, and it took me a couple tries to remove spells and whatnot. Even with nerfed spells, their poison, aura, and incredible physical stats make them better than any level 13 fighter

** spoiler omitted **...

CWheezy, it looks like you went with the interpretation that the spell description gives the GM the latitude to remove abilities that are not appropriate for a pit fiend with 10 HD, and you still thought the creature was overpowered.

However, if you take the approach that the spell allows the creature to keep all abilities not directly dependent on HD, it's even more powerful:

Comparing the Paizo and 3.5 versions of the spell, it looks like Paizo mostly used the 3.5 wording with a few restrictions dropped.

But the dropping of those restrictions aren't why using the most permissive interpretation of RAW makes the spell so powerful. 3.5 very much had RAW support for the HD-reduction mechanic in the form of Savage Species, which not only spelled out abilities available at each HD, but natural armor bonuses, ability score changes, etc. However, outside of a few templates, the Pathfinder system has very little (no?) RAW support for creating creatures with fewer HD than the base creature, except for a few special cases like dragons. Some people therefore conclude that creatures should always keep all their abilities, so even a 5 HD Simulacrum Efreeti should be able to grant three wishes a day. And any GM who rules otherwise is in violation of RAW.

My problem with using this interpretation of the spell is that it's almost impossible to create a world that has any internal logical consistency. Just to start with, as you point out, once the party faces the first 13th level wizard BBEG, how would the party ever win? Unless I make him the dumbest 13th level wizard ever, he'd have at least one (if not more) Simulacrum Pit Fiends available.

And if you allow blood money without any house rules, I honestly can't see how any wizard 13th level our higher wouldn't have a small army of pit fiends, balors, solars, etc. on call--after all, at that point the only limit on the number you can have is the time it takes to make them.

Joex The Pale wrote:

Perhaps I am missing the obvious, but why kill the Efreet/Djinn in the first place? If you've bargained a good bargain with them, wouldn't they be kindly disposed to help you out again, whereas word getting out (and it would eventually) that there's a wacko caster summoning and murdering their brethren would lead to no end of trouble.

Why would the caster kill his bound genie?

I think the idea is that you succeed on your charisma check to succeed at a pretty bad deal and them eliminate them before word gets back (using chicanery to get people to think you were mostly un-involved and/or everyone's ally).

That is my impression from Anzyr's posts on the subject.

With genies it's not that big a deal.

With fiends, for example, it might be.

But I dunno - it probably heavily depends on campaign worlds and alignment/personality interpretations.

I'd agree with this as well.

But won't the clerks in the City of Brass notice when nobody shows up to defend/justify the wish granted?

If the campaign world has such a system in place, the answer is going to be yes, with all that entails for the character.

Cross-posting this here from the high-level math thread, because I would rather respond to it here.

That's actually a very interesting (and good!) question, and one that's been raised in numerous other places. In Paizo's printed Golarion (as of 3.5), the question is answered in a two-fold measure, both in Legacy of Fire:

a) because too many wishes break down reality (and then you get angry things coming at you)

b) because there's apparently a super-sultan of efreeti that already did this once (he might have been the first, but he was definitely the last) and made it so that no one could ever take that title away from him

Also in Legacy of Fire, there is a Genie does something similar this anyway, and it causes lots of problems for himself.

Thanks for pointing this out, Tacticslion. I have the AP, just haven't really looked at it yet. I'll dig into this to look into some of the details.

My requested service is usually something to the effect of "Serve me unquestioningly for the next 8 days". That gives you more then enough time to planar bind another Efreeti to help you get +5 inherent bonuses to all stats. After that you tip off some Jann about some Efreeti slavers in the area, send your Efreet minions on some pointless errand in that area, sit back, relax and have a bowl of popcorn.

Thanks for answering, Anzyr.

So your solution isn't something I'm missing mechanically about how planar binding works. You solve the scenario by making sure it doesn't happen in the first place. And your solution puts us back to what "one service" and a "reasonable command" would be, and here we would just agree to disagree, I think.

Which is fine. The rules allow either of our interpretations to be correct, and as always neither one is badwrongfun as long as each of us and the groups we're playing with are having, you know, fun.

I think you could pull it off without the genies realizing the treachery--ask for two items. The wishes and something else they can do for you to be done after the wishes.

While that would of course work, it would require a very permissive DM to allow two unrelated services to be done as part of the spell, since the spell specifically says "one service".

I'm not sure why they can't grant each other's wishes as is, but I don't have their entry in front of me.

Genies can only grant wishes to non-genies.

I think the "trick" is,

Quote:

Once the requested service is completed, the creature need only to inform you to be instantly sent back whence it came.

If you fool them into completing their tasks and ending their turn (say, pretending good graces and excellent manners) and then utilizing the moment(s) before their next turn to kill them.

I suppose if the party behaved obsequiously enough (which might require one or more Bluff checks), you could convince a genie to stick around long enough—the ones who can grant wishes certainly seem arrogant enough to be willing to listen to flattery for a few rounds, but that's by no means a guarantee. It's just as likely that for all the praise, the genie just wants to get out of their and back home. But I appreciate your perspective. It's one I hadn't thought of, and it's rooted in NPC characterization and motivation, which makes it even more appealing (to me, at least). However, it also means its not a guarantee even if the genie sticks around to listen, because the moment the party attacks, the genie might just choose to plane shift home.

And Anzyr's implication was that he had a guaranteed way to do this. Of course, as he hasn't addressed this scenario yet, it may have relied on the genie simply granting the wishes while locked down to the material plane, in which case my scenario never even comes up.

That being said, unreasonable by definition means things that are not part of rational thought. The unreasonable demands thing is not a blank check to ignore any command they want, it is to prevent things like telling them to kill god, kill themselves, or divide by zero.

The American Heritage Dictionary definition of unreasonable:

1. Not governed by reason: an unreasonable attitude
2. Exceeding reasonable limits; immoderate: unreasonable demands

The American Heritage Dictionary definition of immoderate:

1. Exceeding normal or appropriate bounds; extreme. immoderate spending; immoderate laughter

So, barring a clarification from the developers on the RAI, the rules are ambiguous because the RAW is ambiguous (possibly deliberately so) and a GM is free to define "unreasonable" as either "not goverened by reason" or "immoderate", or both.

And to reiterate something from earlier, neither way of defining this is badwrongfun, so long as the group is actually, you know, having fun. (I should make something like this my signature...)

Getting them to bow to your will could take a lot of time, and is inherently risky. However, it looks totally acceptable within the rules. There's also little reason why an unscrupulous spellcaster of great power and knowledge (of genie-kind) wouldn't attempt this, so it even makes sense in the context of most campaigns.

Ah, I worded my actual question badly, or maybe not even at all. You're right, it is totally acceptable; I even point out that a DM could rule that the genie would still try and grant the wish after watching its compatriot get slaughtered, believing (or just being convinced, per your mechanic) that somehow it will be treated differently.

However, if the GM rules that the genie would find granting wishes to treacherous murderers (from its point of view) to be an "unreasonable command" without some guarantee that it could return to its own plane immediately upon the completion of its part of the bargain, part of what it must get in return to make the command "reasonable" is the be not dimensionally locked, anchored, or bound in any way.

So, my actual question is: given that the genie at the time of granting the last wish is not dimensionally bound, and that the return happens immediately upon the wish being granted, how do you kill it before it returns?

I just don't see a way to make that happen; what am I missing? And if you don't see a way either, RD, that's fine. This question came up because of something Anzyr posted, and I was hoping he would explain to me how mechanically that would happen.

If an outsider doesn't want to do something, the GM assigns a bonus to their Charisma check between +0 and +6. It says impossible or unreasonable commands are never agreed to. Unreasonable by definition means without reason, irrational, lacking in rational faculty.

The American Heritage Dictionary definition of unreasonable:

1. Not governed by reason: an unreasonable attitude
2. Exceeding reasonable limits; immoderate: unreasonable demands

The American Heritage Dictionary definition of immoderate:

1. Exceeding normal or appropriate bounds; extreme. immoderate spending; immoderate laughter

So, barring a clarification from the developers on the RAI, the rules are ambiguous because the RAW is ambiguous (possibly deliberately so) and a GM is free to define "unreasonable" as either "not goverened by reason" or "immoderate", or both.

And to reiterate something from earlier, neither way of defining this is badwrongfun, so long as the group is actually, you know, having fun. (I should make something like this my signature...)

And to ace: my apololgies for jumping back on this shark in this thread, but I did feel it worth pointing out that the wording for planar binding is in fact quite ambiguous about what a bound outsider might be willing to agree to, and does leave a fair amount of interpretation for the GM if he wants to take it.

Spell-like Abilities don't require material, verbal, or somatic components, if I recall correctly.

You're right of course. Somehow I just wasn't noticing the whole "spell-like abilities" part of the stat block for the efreeti, and just reading them as spells. My only defense is that I was pretty tired at that point.

Aelryinth wrote:

AceDiamond: and if you reduce the cost of that acquiring of inherent bonuses to 0, what then?

==Aelryinth

As a GM, I'd say the efreeti would be free to corrupt a wish and give the PC a metaphorical slap for trying to bend reality on a budget. Reality is a classy and deserves at least dinner and a movie before doing what these plans suggest.

I agree. And how that relates specifically to this thread is that if you assume the core rules are intended to make the inherit bonuses expensive and therefore come out of the character's WBL if they want them, this is a way to reduce that cost to 0 and effectively nearly double the PCs WBL even at level 20. If you assume the game is not balanced for that, this contributes to he "breakdown of the math" at higher levels.

Without exactly invoking Rule 0, I happen to remember that several monsters with Wish as SLAs cannot give Inherent bonuses. I don't happen to remember what monsters at the moment, though. Oracles with the Lore mystery and maybe Hastur? I'm on my mobile, so I could be wrong. Specifics aside, are we sure that the efreeti Wish SLA doesn't have that same restriction?

I couldn't find anything in the description for SLAs or any of the core genies that prevent them from using their wishes to grant inherent bonuses.

Now, having said all that, my default position as a GM would the same as what I think yours is: wishes that a player casts (and therefore paid for either by getting the components or finding them as part of their allotted treasure) work as the player intends; heck, even if the player screws up the wording of the wish originally, I'd work with them to get what they wanted as long as it was within the rules (same would be true for miracle). However, coerced wishes would be risking the wish be perverted by the coerced caster. Players would know both these things and be able to make decisions accordingly.

Of course, if I was GMing for a group that wanted successfully coerced wishes to work without perversion so they could get free inherent stat bonuses, I could roll with that, provided they understand that NPCs of sufficient power would use the same tricks, too—since they're free, they don't count against NPC wealth either.

But still, can we refrain from discussing killing outsiders and the repercussions thereof? We went off on that for pages already.

I'm honestly curious how Anzyr plans to get his +5 inherent bonus without at least one genie getting away, unless he believes that, all evidence to the contrary, the treacherous murderers requesting the wishes will keep their word to the second genie because he's special. Having said that, I agree that that discussion is tangental (at best!) to this discussion so hopefully if Anzyr wants to continue it he will not do it here and follow me to Planar Binding, genie wishes, and repercussions.

Re-posting this from another thread because it doesn't really belong in that thread and I am honestly curious how it would work.

The idea is that you could planar bind multiple genies, force them to grant you wishes that would get you to an inherent bonus of +5 to an ability score, but then kill them before they are released from the binding and return to their home plane.

Since you need at least two genies to get to +5, how would you arrange it so that both of the genies died and you still get your +5? Since by the rules, the wishes must be granted in consecutive rounds, the best scenario I see here is:

Setup: Both genies are bound, with dimensional lock in place. Both genies are asked to give +3 inherit ability score increases when requested (note the timing has to be part of the agreement, even if it's simple "On my command"), and both are successfully compelled
Round 1: 1st genie grants 1st ability score increase
Round 2: 1st genie grants 2nd ability score increase
Round 3: 1st genie is killed by party; wizard orders 2nd genie to give 3rd ability score increase; 2nd genie refuses because it has become an unreasonable command, since he now has every reason to believe he will be dead after the 2nd wish is granted

You can argue what happens in round three isn't per the rules, but the spell specifically requires "unreasonable commands" to be refused. Now, what constitutes an "unreasonable command" is a matter of DM judgement, but it certainly seems a very reasonable GM ruling to decide that a genie would find it "unreasonable" to trust the honor of a group that just proved itself to be dishonorable murderers. Furthermore, the genie would not consider the command "reasonable" until it knew that it would be returned to it's home plane "immediately" when the last wish was granted, because there is no way he trusts you to keep your word.

Now you may find it more reasonable to believe the genie will simply grant the wishes and trust the dishonorable murderers to keep their word to him when the party clearly betrayed one of his own kind (or simply grant them out of fear and hope the party is merciful), but neither interpretation is "more correcter" than the other as far as the rules go. It's a matter of how a GM feels NPCs should react to the actions of the PCs, and here is where I think you and I might disagree.

I should point out that for some GMs, an "unreasonable command" could even be mortals asking the genie to grant the wishes in the first place, since it encourages mortals to continue to do so and leads to the continual enslavement of geniekind. Also, if you think a genie wish works exactly like the wish spell and requires a 25,000 gp material component, a genie may find it completely unreasonable to grant the wishes as well if they have to provide the component themselves.

Gigigidge wrote:

*As I read RAW/RAI for using wish to increase an ability score, the wishes must be cast consecutively, and an Efreeti only has 3 wishes a day, so +3 is the best you can do, and if you assume a surviving Efreeti is a potential threat, the best you can do is a +2, since you would have to kill it before it cast the third wish.

You can planar bind more then one and then "arrange" their untimely demise after they all help you get +5 (or you could just Blood Money Wish it up yourself...) But yes you are correct on the RAW/RAI of them needing to be consecutive.

Putting aside the Blood Money part of this for the moment...

Since you need at least two genies to get to +5, how would you arrange it so that both of the genies died and you still get your +5? Since by the rules, the wishes must be granted in consecutive rounds, the best scenario I see here is:

Setup: Both genies are bound, with dimensional lock in place. Both genies are asked to give +3 inherit ability score increases when requested (note the timing has to be part of the agreement, even if it's simple "On my command"), and both are successfully compelled
Round 1: 1st genie grants 1st ability score increase
Round 2: 1st genie grants 2nd ability score increase
Round 3: 1st genie is killed by party; wizard orders 2nd genie to give 3rd ability score increase; 2nd genie refuses because it has become an unreasonable command, since he now has every reason to believe he will be dead after the 2nd wish is granted

You can argue what happens in round three isn't per the rules, but the spell specifically requires "unreasonable commands" to be refused. Now, what constitutes an "unreasonable command" is a matter of DM judgement, but it certainly seems a very reasonable GM ruling to decide that a genie would find it "unreasonable" to trust the honor of a group that just proved itself to be dishonorable murderers. Furthermore, the genie would not consider the command "reasonable" until it knew that it would be returned to it's home plane when the last wish was granted.

Now you may find it more reasonable to believe the genie will simply grant the wishes and trust the dishonorable murderers to keep their word to him when the party clearly betrayed one of his own kind (or simply grant them out of fear and hope the party is merciful), but neither interpretation is "more correcter" than the other as far as the rules go. It's a matter of how a GM feels NPCs should react to the actions of the PCs, and here is where I think you and I might disagree.

I should point out that for some GMs, an "unreasonable command" could even be mortals asking the genie to grant the wishes in the first place, since it encourages mortals to continue to do so and leads to the continual enslavement of geniekind. Also, if you think a genie wish works exactly like the wish spell and requires a 25,000 gp material component, a genie may find it completely unreasonable to grant the wishes as well if they have to provide the component themselves.

aceDiamond: First, thanks for the compliment earlier.

As for the reason for this post:

Does this thread need to dissolve into another clarification on the ruling on Planar Binding again? We're dealing with high level play being mechanically sound or broken. The exact wording of this spell should be enforced by GM reading more than anything else. And only because it brings in a new NPC/character.

I think people bring this spell up because this is an area where play styles can change the utility of the spell dramatically. If you assume that players can serially bind creatures, compel them into service, then release them when the service is over with few if any repercussions, the spell is indeed quite powerful. If the repercussions are potentially much riskier, you'll probably use it as a last resort, if you use it at all.

How it applies to the higher level math: at the higher levels, you can get up to a +3 inherent bonus* to an ability at almost no cost by binding an Efreeti and forcing it to use all three wishes consecutively. If you are building for maximum optimization and the repercussions would be assumed to be easily manageable (if there are any at all), there is no reason, really, not to do it.

*As I read RAW/RAI for using wish to increase an ability score, the wishes must be cast consecutively, and an Efreeti only has 3 wishes a day, so +3 is the best you can do, and if you assume a surviving Efreeti is a potential threat, the best you can do is a +2, since you would have to kill it before it cast the third wish.

It's one thing to talk about keeping your saves up being a treadmill, but if the system automatically normalizes everything, then leveling up is... ONLY a treadmill. I get that not everyone likes to have to choose between their vegetables and candy, but that's the nature of the beast when it comes to allowing customization.

This.

The system allows you to build a 20th level melee character who the BBEG can only miss on a roll of 1 and a 20th level melee character who the BBEG can only hit on a roll of 20. It also allows you to build a very large number of things in-between, with all the variation that implies in abilities, tactics, strategies, and narrative options for the DM and players alike. After all, if the system allowed for virtually no customization, not only would you get RJs treadmill over the life of the class (the numbers get bigger, but nothing ever changes about how the class plays), but all characters of the same class would always follow the same tactics because they would all be running on the same treadmill.

Does that mean you get both parties of "balanced" characters who will take four rounds to kill the BBEG in a straight-up fight but who will have a decent chance of surviving even if ambushed and parties of "glass cannons" that can take out the BBEG in one round in a straight-up fight but have a very high probability of being TPK'd if ambushed? Sure. And that's just fine. The different groups have chosen different strategies for dealing with risks and rewards, and neither of those choices is badwrongfun. (On a side note, you can have parties of "RP heavy" characters who accept the risks of being either not well-balanced or well-optimized for combat, and who might struggle with killing the BBEG in eight rounds and be lucky to survive an ambush at all, and as long as that's their choice, it isn't badwrongfun either.)

In other words, the wide variety of choices allow for a wide variety of playstyles, and there's inherently no badwrongfun way to build characters or play the game unless you aren't, you know, actually having fun.

P.S. Having said that, there are some things I would change about the mechanics of the game, but I don't think anything I would like to see changed would eliminate the option to play "rocket tag".