First Aid: If a character has lost hit points, you can restore some of them. A successful check, as a full-round action, restores a number of hit points equal to your Heal check results. You can take 20 on this check by spending 2 full minutes. First aid can be performed on a character once per fight in which he or she is injured, to a maximum amount of damage healed equal to the amount sustained in that fight.
That's great man, thank you. Helps shape the Heal modkfications that I'm making.
I have a particular dilemma at my current table, where after weeks of playing with a new group, not a single one is interested in any sort of healing class or set of abilitites, and each spends all of their resources on murder-gear. I don't prefer to strongarm my players, but to accommodate their play style, in this case they like to roll to hit and that's about it. But... they need some sort of in-combat healing, and a couple of them have asked if the Heal Skill can be used to restore HP.
This is what I've come up with:
Triage: Successful use of the Heal skill will restore 1HD (roll) worth of Hit Points to the target being attended and uses up a heal kit. Restore an additional HD worth of Hit Points for every 5 by which you exceed the DC. The DC is (Total lost Hit Points), and is a full-round action.
I have a level 1 character with 1 rank in Knowledge: Nature as a Class skill, and I want to use the Take 10 rule to achieve a result of at least 17, with the purpose of knowing which animals of CR 2 are in a particular region. What are the ways that I can fill that 3 point gap? And how high can we get this check with the various means at level 1?
A couple of ways that I have found are:
1. The Aid Other rule allows a fellow player or an NPC to grant a +2 untyped bonus.
Though these are both common enough options, either might not be available to a particular group, and so more options should lead to a greater likelihood of obtaining that +3 total bonus.
I also spotted another error. The guide states: "There is no consequence to failing a Knowledge check, and so at 1st level with Take 20, your result will auto-succeed up to about DC 24." Incorrect.
SRD Knowledge wrote:
Try Again
No. The check represents what you know, and thinking about a topic a second time doesn’t let you know something that you never learned in the first place.
There is a consequence for failure: you cannot know something you never learned.
/cevah
Hey folks, thank you for the corrections. I will be looking over the Animal Companion supplement that came out about a year ago, and then updating this guide :)
Hmm, just noticed a mechanically similar issue regarding the order conditions should be checked.
Imagine a Sorcerer with the following two features:
The Magical Lineage Trait on Grease.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/magic-traits/magical-lineage
The Arcane Bloodline, specifically the Arcana:
"Whenever you apply a metamagic feat to a spell that increases the slot used by at least one level, increase the spell's DC by +1..."
Suppose they cast Stilled Grease. The metamagic feat does normally increase the slot by one level, but due to magical lineage this increase is ignored.
Does the save DC get increased by the Arcana?
To me, this seems similar to the summoning question before.
To be consistent I think we either we check variables at the last moment, (so 3 fiends, but no bonus to grease DC), or check at the start (2 fiends, +1 bonus to DC).
The "synergistic" approach is actually to not increase the grease DC, since the abilities should take each other into account.
A year and a half later, sorry guys for the absence, had a serious health issue.
This is a very good example, thank you for bringing it to this conversation :)
But the wording in the above bolded line tells us that in order to gain the +1 Spell DC from the Bloodline, there must be present a Metamagic feat which, within itself has the qualifier of "increases one level." It does not require anything of the spell itself. And so, yes, it would gain the +1 Spell DC in spite of the increase to the spell's level being ignored.
So this is definitely more support for a Synergistic FGL.
Target or Area one spellcaster, creature, or object
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no
You can use dispel magic to end one ongoing spell that has been cast on a creature or object, to temporarily suppress the magical abilities of a magic item, or to counter another spellcaster's spell. A dispelled spell ends as if its duration had expired. Some spells, as detailed in their descriptions, can't be defeated by dispel magic. Dispel magic can dispel (but not counter) spell-like effects just as it does spells. The effect of a spell with an instantaneous duration can't be dispelled, because the magical effect is already over before the dispel magic can take effect.
You choose to use dispel magic in one of two ways: a targeted dispel or a counterspell.
Targeted Dispel: One object, creature, or spell is the target of the dispel magic spell. You make one dispel check (1d20 + your caster level) and compare that to the spell with highest caster level (DC = 11 + the spell's caster level). If successful, that spell ends. If not, compare the same result to the spell with the next highest caster level. Repeat this process until you have dispelled one spell affecting the target, or you have failed to dispel every spell.
For example, a 7th-level caster casts dispel magic, targeting a creature affected by stoneskin (caster level 12th) and fly (caster level 6th). The caster level check results in a 19. This check is not high enough to end the stoneskin (which would have required a 23 or higher), but it is high enough to end the fly (which only required a 17). Had the dispel check resulted in a 23 or higher, the stoneskin would have been dispelled, leaving the fly intact. Had the dispel check been a 16 or less, no spells would have been affected.
You can also use a targeted dispel to specifically end one spell affecting the target or one spell affecting an area (such as a wall of fire). You must name the specific spell effect to be targeted in this way. If your caster level check is equal to or higher than the DC of that spell, it ends. No other spells or effects on the target are dispelled if your check is not high enough to end the targeted effect.
If you target an object or creature that is the effect of an ongoing spell (such as a monster summoned by summon monster), you make a dispel check to end the spell that conjured the object or creature.
If the object that you target is a magic item, you make a dispel check against the item's caster level (DC = 11 + the item's caster level). If you succeed, all the item's magical properties are suppressed for 1d4 rounds, after which the item recovers its magical properties. A suppressed item becomes nonmagical for the duration of the effect. An interdimensional opening (such as a bag of holding) is temporarily closed. A magic item's physical properties are unchanged: A suppressed magic sword is still a sword (a masterwork sword, in fact). Artifacts and deities are unaffected by mortal magic such as this.
You automatically succeed on your dispel check against any spell that you cast yourself.
Counterspell: When dispel magic is used in this way, the spell targets a spellcaster and is cast as a counterspell. Unlike a true counterspell, however, dispel magic may not work; you must make a dispel check to counter the other spellcaster's spell.
The General Rule for Caster Level is as follows:
PRD wrote:
Caster Level
A spell's power often depends on its caster level, which for most spellcasting characters is equal to her class level in the class she's using to cast the spell.
You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, and all level-dependent features must be based on the same caster level.
In the event that a class feature or other special ability provides an adjustment to your caster level, that adjustment applies not only to effects based on caster level (such as range, duration, and damage dealt), but also to your caster level check to overcome your target's spell resistance and to the caster level used in dispel checks (both the dispel check and the DC of the check).
Other entries state:
APG wrote:
Caster Level: Generally equal to the number of class levels (see below) in a spellcasting class. Some prestige classes add caster levels to an existing class.
APG wrote:
Caster Level: A spell's power often depends on caster level, which is defined as the caster's class level for the purpose of casting a particular spell. The word “level” in the short descriptions that follow always refers to caster level.
Just below is the example given in Dispel Magic.
PRD wrote:
For example, a 7th-level caster casts dispel magic, targeting a creature affected by stoneskin (caster level 12th) and fly (caster level 6th). The caster level check results in a 19. This check is not high enough to end the stoneskin (which would have required a 23 or higher), but it is high enough to end the fly (which only required a 17). Had the dispel check resulted in a 23 or higher, the stoneskin would have been dispelled, leaving the fly intact. Had the dispel check been a 16 or less, no spells would have been affected.
My reading of the example is that it implies that Stoneskin and Fly were either cast from two different sources, or for some reason the same caster chose to lower the CL when he cast Fly. Stoneskin is a 4th or 5th level spell, which means its minimum Caster Level is 7th, but by the example and based on the definition of Caster Level, a 12th level Sorc/Wizard/Druid cast it. Fly is a 3rd level spell, which means that its minimum Caster Level is 5th, by the example it was cast by a 6th level Sorc/Wizard.
Is there such thing as a minimum Caster Level? Can a 10th level Wizard intentionally cast Fireball at CL 1, doing only 1D6 damage, consequently lowering that Fireball's CL to 1st? Would it's counterspell DC via Dispel Magic then be 11 plus 1 = 12?
As for using Dispel Magic to counterspell, by my reading you must Ready an Action to counterspell against a specific target, and once that target begins to cast, you cast Dispel Magic. At this point, you add your Caster Level to a D20 result, and then compare that to 11 plus the Caster Level of the spell being cast. If you meet or beat that result, you've countered it.
School transmutation; Level druid 8, sorcerer/wizard 7
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M/DF (lodestone and iron filings)
Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Area up to one 10-ft. cube/level (S)
Duration 1 round/level (D)
Saving Throw none; see text; Spell Resistance no
This spell reverses gravity in an area, causing unattached objects and creatures in the area to fall upward and reach the top of the area in 1 round. If a solid object (such as a ceiling) is encountered in this fall, falling objects and creatures strike it in the same manner as they would during a normal downward fall. If an object or creature reaches the top of the area without striking anything, it remains there, oscillating slightly, until the spell ends. At the end of the spell duration, affected objects and creatures fall downward.
Provided it has something to hold onto, a creature caught in the area can attempt a Reflex save to secure itself when the spell strikes. Creatures who can fly or levitate can keep themselves from falling.
Am I reading this correctly? You have a bunch of shapeable 10' cubes. If I place one cube on top of one creature it will "fall" 10' upwards, and then reach the top of the area [of effect], where it will oscillate. If I stack 2 cubes in a column over the same creature, it "falls" 20'. If I see that the ceiling is 60', I can stack 6 cubes in a column over the same creature, causing it to "fall" 60', and since it connects with a solid surface, it will take 6D6 falling damage.
If said creature then stood up, and walked outside of the 10' cubic area, his gravity would re-reverse, causing him to fall 60' back to the ground. If he reentered the area of effect, he'd "fall" 60' back to the ceiling. Are these the correct physics of this spell?
Cool. I stumbled upon the exact section governing the Calling and Binding of Outsiders, found Here.
A Called Outsider is not under the callers control, but certain spells Do regulate its behavior (Such as Legato making them Indifferent, and sticking around for 1 minute), but once it agrees to perform a service it is then Magically Bound to complete that service. Agreeance is not simply a handshake. Notice the many references within each Calling spell which read "Breaking Free" or "until the duration bargained for expires," its referring to the Outsider's inability to simply walk away from the agreement. Why? Because it is magically bound, as is explained in the link above. The 'challenge' or trick to Binding an outsider is to convince it (with Rod or Sugarcane) to agree to be bound.
Planar Ally, Planar Binding, and Gate are all analogues, and are governed under this General Section on Binding Outsiders, and the Conjuration General rule.
Now, the only sticking point is Payment. Is it required, or does the Opposed Charisma check replace it, making payment an incentive instead?
Legato Piece only requires an Opposed Charisma check, which says explicitly if you win that check, the Outsider will agree to the task. Beef up with bonuses to your Charisma check, and you've got this in your bag ;)
Well this can be looked at as an example of roleplaying vs mechanics. (Fluff vs crunch if you will)
There have been plenty of times that I have had an NPC target an ally for bantering back and forth with them or when they deal an especially telling blow to them (Oh wow! That guy's dangerous!).
Just food for though: do we need mechanics for it?
See my request in the OP to not derail thread ;) Thanks.
My reading:
1. You Antagonize with Intimidate.
2. It must then make an attack against you, and only you, on its next turn. It only has natural melee weapons.
3. On its turn, it can't cross the Ravine. Effect ends.
4. Seeing this, you make an Immediate Antagonize check to extend the effect for 1 more round. Go about your business slaying baddies.
5. On its next turn, it still can't cross the Ravine. Effect ends.
What you've accomplished is that on its first turn under this effect, it was forced to do nothing. Otherwise, the Antagonize would have accomplished nothing as the effect ends and it goes about its business slaying your buddies.
Have you taken a look at the Antagonize feat from Ultimate Magic. It seems similar to what you are looking for, or could at least give you a baseline to work from.
Antagonize:
Antagonize
Whether with biting remarks or hurtful words, you are adept at making creatures angry with you.
Benefit: You can make Diplomacy and Intimidate checks to make creatures respond to you with hostility. No matter which skill you use, antagonizing a creature takes a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity, and has a DC equal to 10+ the target's Hit Dice + the target's Wisdom modifier. You cannot make this check against a creature that does not understand you or has an Intelligence score of 3 or lower. Before you make these checks, you may make a Sense Motive check (DC 20) as a swift action to gain an insight bonus on these Diplomacy or Intimitade checks equal to your Charisma bonus until the end of your next turn. The benefits you gain for this check depend on the skill you use. This is a mind-affecting effect.
Diplomacy: You fluster your enemy. For the next minute, the target takes a –2 penalty on all attacks rolls made against creatures other than you and has a 10% spell failure chance on all spells that do not target you or that have you within their area of effect.
Intimidate: The creature flies into a rage. On its next turn, the target must attempt to make a melee attack against you, make a ranged attack against you, target you with a spell, or include you in the area of a spell. The effect ends if the creature is prevented from attacking you or attempting to do so would harm it (for example, if you are on the other side of a chasm or a wall of fire). If it cannot attack you on its turn, you may make the check again as an immediate action to extend the effect for 1 round (but cannot extend it thereafter). The effect ends as soon as the creature attacks you. Once you have targeted a creature with this ability, you cannot target it again for 1 day.
I didn't know that it existed :) Thank you for the link. I have a couple of issues with it. It is Mind-affecting, so about half of the creature types are immune, and it can only affect a creature once every 24 hours, and even then it lasts only 1 round.
It is definitely Pathfinder's version of Taunt, though I was thinking something more along the lines of a specialized combat role for heavily defensive types. Antagonize doesn't allow the level of control I was hoping for.
Components V, S, M/DF (a pool of water), F (a silver mirror worth 1,000 gp)
Range see text
Effect magical sensor
Duration 1 min./level
Saving Throw Will negates; Spell Resistance yes
You can observe a creature at any distance. If the subject succeeds on a Will save, the spell fails. The difficulty of the save depends on how well your knowledge of the subject and what sort of physical connection (if any) you have to that creature. Furthermore, if the subject is on another plane, it gets a +5 bonus on its Will save.
I know that you have argued against doing this, but I couldn't argue from your position without analogous support. Your position is valid, for sure, and Scrying is a strong case for it, so we have precedence.
What is nice about At the Heart of it All, is that its rather powerful for the level range. BBeGs are pretty much in his pocket, and it synergizes strongly with other Masterpieces.
This is more of a research performance. You don't use it while they're actually in your presence, you use it in the morning before you hunt them down or something like that.
Interesting, can it be used outside of their presence? I kind of see how you're reading it.
Otherwise, my roomie just suggested that its more like Sanctuary. Not itself a direct attack, even though it calls for a Will save.
Title says it all. This thread is for those who like the idea of a Taunt Mechanic. I'd like to compare some rules that I'm tossing around with others, hopefully to improve up on them.
Any Critiques should be in the vein of improving a given idea; please don't post comments that this is a "bad" idea, or that it "ruins" Pathfinder :P This is a homebrew/house rule thread, it will work for the table at which its utilized.
Paulcynic's Beta Taunt Rules wrote:
Intercept: Whenever you gain an Attack of Opportunity against a moving foe, you may choose to Intercept. You engage the target in such a way that it feels unable to move further. The foe must have moved at least one square, and if your Intercept is successful it ends its move action in the square at which you intercepted.
Taunt: As a Standard Action, you may catch the attention of one target within one Move action, or 30', which ever is greater. By engaging this target in such a way that it feels unable to engage anyone else on the battlefield, you make an Intimidate check (DC 10 plus 1/2 Target's Hit Dice plus Sense Motive or Wis mod). If you succeed, the target becomes Fixated on you.
Fixate: Fixate is a Condition. Fixated creatures ignore all but a single target, directing all of its attacks against this target if able; gaining a +2 Circumstance bonus to Attacks against this target, but suffer a -2 AC penalty from other attackers. Fixated creatures will move to within 30' of the taunter, getting into a reasonable striking range. After the first round of being Fixated it may attempt to move out of line of sight, but only if cover or concealment can be found w/in 30'. Fixation is broken, and this condition ends anytime the creature is attacked by, or receives damage from any source, when the target they are fixated on is healed by an ally, or when line of sight is broken.
Sorry Paul, but I was actually agreeing with mpl. I've read all the posts and all the relevant lines and as far as I can tell your take on the masterpiece is wrong in every level. That is what I was trying to say.
So one of the key points I've made is that the negotiation is magically binding. You disagree with that?
Yes. I disagree with that. It's just a way to call a guy and ask if he wants to do some contract work. It's better done on Lawful outsiders, who will uphold their contracts to the letter. Chaotic outsiders will only help you if it's something they would like to do anyway. Evil outsiders have a 50% chance of backstabbing you at the end of the contract just because.
As far as I see what happens is you sing so well an outsider shows up and says:
Outsider: "Hey, sup. Pretty cool song, man"
Bard: "Thanks bro. Hey listen, I need someone to help me out with a thing. You in?" Describe what you want, something aligned with the creture is better, like protecting people for an angel or destroying something for a demon.
Outsider: "Yeah dude, I'm into that stuff, I can dig it. But I'm no fool to go around working for free. You got the cash to pay for the work?"
Bard: "Sure nuff man. I'll even throw in some quality smoking medicinal herbs."
Ousider: "Oh, you got the good stuff. Deal bro. I'll get it done, like, right now."
I would allow a Diplomacy check in that one minute, since it's the exact time for it.
Edit: I think the bard and the outsider are from the seventies. My mind is weird...
Cool. I really appreciate you having this discussion with me :) I've already made my case as to why it is magically binding, and so I'll just leave your contribution to the reading as the last word :)
JiCi, I get it bud. I do :) I'm asking you to source your claim that it only looks at the unmodified spell. There are examples of rules qualifying each other, when individually they should not qualify.
Where does your assumption come from :P That's what I'm asking. Sourcing it will end the debate.
I don't have any concrete source other than just logic I'm afraid.
Ah, but JiCi, there are two other threads from about a year ago that on this very issue. There were two sets of logic being argued, which I have described above. The nature of my question to you was specifically to obtain support for the logic by which you ascribe.
Personally, the synergistic logic has more like-example support. Is it safe to postulate that modifiers qualify each other? Yes, until someone can produce an example to support otherwise.
I would say that the Bard is indeed targeting that specific creature with this feat. And gaining an advantage does do something to the target, it weakens it against you.
As far as if it counts as an attack, in what context? I'm not really sure as to what you are trying to ask?
Ah :) Targeting it, yes, there it is. In my minds eye I was thinking "like a ray" or some other obviously aggressive action that targets. I think the issue for me comes from the fact that one of the primary benefits of this masterpiece is that it allows us to better influence the target. But we technically have to attack them to achieve this. Which leaves me to wonder how exactly am I going to take advantage of that +4 in combat?
Sorry Paul, but I was actually agreeing with mpl. I've read all the posts and all the relevant lines and as far as I can tell your take on the masterpiece is wrong in every level. That is what I was trying to say.
So one of the key points I've made is that the negotiation is magically binding. You disagree with that?
It allows for a Will save, but it doesn't do anything directly To the target, it instead grants the Bard a bonus to Influence it. Also, it is not actually targeting the creature, it hears the Bard's performance and the Bard then understands it better by its reaction.
Ability Text here:
Quote:
At the Heart of It All (String, Wind)
Your song pierces to the heart of a creature's identity, weakening it against you.
Effect: This haunting melody teases at the veils of understanding and drills into the bedrock of truth. Upon completing this performance, the target attempts a Will save. Failure means you understand the target's primal nature; you gain a +4 bonus on Charisma-based checks to influence the target, and the DCs of your abilities and spells that would influence the creature or its actions (including charm and compulsion effects) increase by +2. These bonuses last for 1 day.
You must have an idea of who the creature is when you begin to play the song, either through researching the creature or by observing it directly from no farther than 100 feet.
Interesting, three different sections on Incorporeal, and only the Subtype includes it. Baaad Paizo, should be in the main entry under Universal Monster Rules :P
And you evidently never understood my debate tone, either, which is playful and full of hyperbole and reductio ad absurdum, because I always debate with a smile.
If I did misunderstand you, and I apologize. But reading it again, you're addressing it at me. Even so, we have a good dialogue going in another thread.
Others have agreed with my take as well, but the finer points of this argument are hardly settled. This is a debate, it got a little edgy. /happens. As Ross the Mod is always saying, Flag it and Move on.
The Bard has a Masterpiece called The Quickening Pulse. Masterpieces are Supernatural effects. QP says that it quickens the target's heartbeat to dangerous levels. This suggests that its not possible due to the fact that Incorporeal creatures have no body. I'm pretty sure its not possible based on this, but if there's an argument for it working, that'd be helpful :)
Relevant Text:
Incorporeal (Ex) An incorporeal creature has no physical body. It can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, magic weapons or creatures that strike as magic weapons, and spells, spell-like abilities, or supernatural abilities. It is immune to all nonmagical attack forms. Even when hit by spells or magic weapons, it takes only half damage from a corporeal source. Although it is not a magical attack, holy water affects incorporeal undead. Corporeal spells and effects that do not cause damage only have a 50% chance of affecting an incorporeal creature (except for channel energy).
The Quickening Pulse (Percussion, Wind)
Effect: You create a musical tempo that first mirrors your enemies' heartbeats, and then quickens them to dangerous levels. When you complete the performance, all enemies within 30 feet who can hear your performance must save or take 1d6 points of damage as their pounding heart causes them to sweat blood. Creatures that are immune to critical hits are unaffected by this ability.
Each round that you continue the performance adds another round to the bleed effect. Abilities that extend the duration of a bardic performance (such as Lingering Performance) affect this masterpiece.
It would put this to rest, because currently nothing I've crossed says that this statement is true. Where does this assumption come from (which may be correct btw)?
Hmmm, how to say this...?
The summon spell, at its most basic, unmodified form, before applying any feat and such, must summon at least 2 creatures in order for the Superior Summoning feat to be applied. Yes, there are other feats and abilities that add more creatures, but if the initial spell only summoned one creature, Superior Summoning can't be applied, because the spell itself doesn't summon two creatures initially.
JiCi, I get it bud. I do :) I'm asking you to source your claim that it only looks at the unmodified spell. There are examples of rules qualifying each other, when individually they should not qualify.
Where does your assumption come from :P That's what I'm asking. Sourcing it will end the debate.
I've never encountered a gaming culture that felt so strongly entitled. Isn't that perhaps a bit of hyperbole?
This board has tons of that
But aren't we talking about the real world, and not hyper-inflated affectation that is a character of internet culture? :P I can't imagine people behaving as extremely as you're suggesting when sitting at the same table playing a game together. I'm not saying it can't happen, I just can't imagine how those groups survive social selection.
You can absolutely "adopt" a real tiger as your companion, using the Leadership feat.
:blinks:
Leadership? Really? For a tiger?
Why not with the Handle Animal skill? That actually has rules for rearing a wild animal yourself and then training it for combat, and it makes a lot more sense for a druid.
Yeah, exactly true. Handle Animal allows the taming or purchasing of a domesticated Dire Tiger, which can be trained for combat. With a +11 bonus to Handle Animal at level 1, one could rear up to a 6 HD animal. That includes Lions and Tigers. I have specialized in Handle Animal on a thought-experiment Bard and got his Handle Animal to +14 at level 1, that's a Dire Lion.
Even if one reels it in, having a +8 at level 1 allows for the domestication and training of Leopards (3 HD) which are medium animals, can be purchased for 100g, and who have 5 attacks with pounce. No leopards? how about some Aurochs then, they're 50g apiece, train 2 of them and now you've got two combat animals with Trample (2d6+9), who can also Stampede.
I agree with the many voices saying that Animal Companions are weaker because they are a class feature. But also looking at their stats, they're juvenile until level 4 or 7, at which point they gain full size and stats of a mature animal of their type.
Honestly, just go with Handle Animal in the early levels /wreck the campaign. And ;P If your Aurochs dies, now you have dinner.
. As someone who has nothing invested in this argument
I see a lot of this sort of cheer leading on these forums. Mpl is wrong. I am showing why he is wrong. I have not brought in irrelevant sources to support my claims, I have brought in tangent sources to support tangent claims: specifically my assertion that the agreement is magically binding, and not simply a handshake. Which is the stance Mpl had taken, and was wrong about ;P
You haven't read through this thread as thoroughly as you ought to have.
My "tone" as you're calling it is just factual :) Mpl made the extraordinary claim that I was using Reductio ad absurdum, which wasn't even the correct application of that logical fallacy. Now That is pretty condescending. Its like the guy who calls everything "ironic" when it strikes him as funny.
Mpl :) I honestly don't think you're trolling. Really I don't. But you have made completely inaccurate statements several times now:
1. Can't use Diplomacy during the Negotiation. "being indifferent does not suddenly open Diplomacy to Helpful as an option." When it says
Quote:
initial attitude is Indifferent.
2. Summoning is "creating" a creature. When Summoning itself says that it
Quote:
instantly brings a creature or object to a place you designate. When the spell ends or is dispelled, a summoned creature is instantly sent back to where it came from
3. "Further, the idea that "Calling" is "conjuring" a creature is silly to me." Event Though Calling is listed under the General section on Conjuration.
4. "I am considering calling to be closer to teleportation than summoning." With no explanation or support, and there is no precedence for this.
mplindustries wrote:
Take special note that I did not quote Planar Binding or Gate or any other spell because only Planar Ally is relevant because it is the only spell referenced by Legato.
You had claimed that the "agreement" wasn't magically binding. I used Gate and Planar Binding to prove that the General rule on Conjured Creatures says otherwise. Again, Mpl, of what are they "breaking free"? Answer: The Conjuration General rule which states that they will obey you, in this case, obeying me means they are magically bound to abide the agreement. Your position slipped on this one as well.
mplindustries wrote:
Nothing in Legato removes, replaces, contradicts, or alters this line.
Actually, there are two lines which clearly state that it Replaces the payment, it begins the list of exceptions with:
Quote:
Unlike with planar ally
and ends that list with
Quote:
This ability otherwise works like planar ally.
By your logic it is saying that "Unlike Planar Ally, make an Opposed Charisma Check in addition to Payment. This ability otherwise works like Planar Ally." That is just nonsense, and falls in line with all of the other false assertions you've made (see the list above).
I am not saying that you're incapable of making a solid argument, I'm saying that you're not making one here. Every time you make a falsifiable claim, you marginalize yourself. I'm not doing that to you.
mplindustries wrote:
so that minute of time is earmarked for something specific. You cannot do other things during that minute because that minute is part of the ability's effect.
Legato Piece wrote:
and has an initial attitude of “indifferent” toward you. Because it is intrigued by your performance, it remains for up to 1 minute to hear the service you are requesting and the payment you are offering.
Negotiation is part of this. There is no way that it cannot be part of this. Diplomacy governs negotiation. "initial attitude" is a clear statement that the attitude can be adjusted. The Bard has 1 minute to Conclude and make his Charisma check. He can stare quietly at the Outsider for 54 seconds, and then speak for 6. By your interpretation he must speak for the entire 1 minute, but there's nothing to support this. If the Bard chooses to entertain the Outsider during that minute, or offer platitudes to improve its attitude, he has up to 1 minute to get all that done.
mplindustries wrote:
However, you are so stubborn, you actually argued that, yes, you do get to command people you teleport, and that is obviously an error so it should be FAQed.
I certainly did not, lul. I have not taken the time to find printed support for why Teleportation does not grant control, that is the only real dilemma here. Its in the book somewhere. It must be there, or else RAW is inconsistent. Its a simple omission if none can be found. But you then went on some pretty wild tangents, claiming all sorts of stuff about Summoning and Calling that was patently false. Now you're claiming that it was in jest.. how convenient.
mplindustries wrote:
Again, an absence of text in Legato or Planar Ally claiming you can make them do anything beyond the task you negotiated.
Just as with Planar Ally, I can assign an open ended task, an open ended task with specific terms, or a specific task with an open ended time frame (up to 1 day/caster level).
My assertion is not that the Bard has complete control over them from the start (though they are bound by Conjuration magic to appear, and to listen) but that once the creature "agrees" it is now magically bound to complete the terms of the service agreed upon.
Both Planar Ally and Planar Binding (which are analogues) limit the amount of control a conjurer can exert over the conjured creature as laid out explicitly in the text. These spells go to great length to explain how they each deviate from the Conjuration General rule. You are pulling at strings, misunderstanding why I am referencing analogous spells. Its to support the "magically binding" part of the "agreed upon" services. Do you honestly believe that a Glabrezu that has been imprisoned, tortured, and humiliated is happy to be of service? No, its not. Likewise, do you think that an Azata is excited to take 1000 gold to go forth and slaughter an enemy prince, only to find that every man, woman, and child comes to his defense? He'll have to cut his way through everyone who tries to battle him off until the task is complete. Because he is magically bound to do so by the Conjuration General rule.
This seems to be our sticking point:
Legato Piece wrote:
Because it is intrigued by your performance, it remains for up to 1 minute to hear the service you are requesting and the payment you are offering. If you succeed at an opposed Charisma check against the creature (with a +0 to +6 bonus on your roll based on the nature of the service and the offered reward), it agrees to perform the service.
Here's what it says about Payment:
Planar Ally wrote:
The creature called requires a payment for its services. This payment can take a variety of forms, from donating gold or magic items to an allied temple, to a gift given directly to the creature, to some other action on your part that matches the creature's alignment and goals. Regardless, this payment must be made before the creature agrees to perform any services.
Legato Piece says that if it likes my payment I get a bonus! Woo. Now, I choose not to pay it. According to Legato Piece, I get no bonus. Aww :( But then goes on to say that if I succeed at the opposed Charisma check, it agrees to perform the service.
Even with the payment clause intact, I can choose to simply make the opposed Charisma check. Occam's Razor: No payment is required. That's going off your logic.
I'm asserting that "Unlike Planar Ally," one need only make the Opposed Charisma check. Because that is exactly what Legato Piece says. Payment/Reward is only to sweeten the deal.
Furthermore, that would mean that if you try to summon monsters one level lower and roll a 1, the feat wouldn't apply, because it's not "more than one creature". So basically, what the feat should have been saying, it's:
"Each time you cast a summoning spell that conjures at least two creatures, add one to the total number of creatures summoned."
This is true, and is another side of the coin. However, if we accept this logic, then Added Summonings would ensure that all Demon and Fiendish templated summons will summon more than 1. That's if we accept it.
However, there is nothing explicit in the rules which states that modifiers aren't synergistic, that they must only look at the unmodified spell.
On the other hand, there is some precedence for modifiers qualifying each other. This Passage is what I'm referring to:
Feats wrote:
Prerequisites
Some feats have prerequisites. Your character must have the indicated ability score, class feature, feat, skill, base attack bonus, or other quality designated in order to select or use that feat. A character can gain a feat at the same level at which he gains the prerequisite.
A character can't use a feat if he loses a prerequisite, but he does not lose the feat itself. If, at a later time, he regains the lost prerequisite, he immediately regains full use of the feat that prerequisite enables.
Please understand that I'm saying it lends weight :) not that it makes things crystal clear. One can gain a feat at the same level he gains the prereq, because one modifier qualifies the other. There is no order of operations, its a matter of one being present, and so the other checks positively.
I think it would be helpful we can find a passage which validates this statement:
JiCi wrote:
My point is that the feat applies only if [qualified] at least 2 creatures are summoned by the unmodified spell, as metamagic feats apply after calculations.
It would put this to rest, because currently nothing I've crossed says that this statement is true. Where does this assumption come from (which may be correct btw)?
However, the counter-argument could be that Superior Summoning applies a +1 typless bonus to the number of creatures summoned by a Summon Monster spell. Typless bonuses exist, and this one is certainly not defined so it could be typless.
The counter-counter argument is that all bonuses are specifically designated as bonuses. The fact that it does not give you a bonus creature or give you a +1 bonus to the number of creatures summoned or anything else using the word "bonus" means it is not a bonus.
Ah, yeah, very good point. I've requoted Spell Perfection and Superior Summoning for ease of scrutiny. I think you're right though :)
Feats in Question:
Spell Perfection wrote:
Spell Perfection
You are unequaled at the casting of one particular spell.
Prerequisites: Spellcraft 15 ranks, at least three metamagic feats.
Benefit: Pick one spell which you have the ability to cast. Whenever you cast that spell you may apply any one metamagic feat you have to that spell without affecting its level or casting time, as long as the total modified level of the spell does not use a spell slot above 9th level. In addition, if you have other feats which allow you to apply a set numerical bonus to any aspect of this spell (such as Spell Focus, Spell Penetration, Weapon Focus [ray], and so on), double the bonus granted by that feat when applied to this spell.
Benefit: Each time you cast a summoning spell that conjures more than one creature, add one to the total number of creatures summoned.
Spell Perfection uses Spell Focus as an example, and it does not identify a bonus either, just a specific numerical increase.
Spell Focus wrote:
Spell Focus
Choose a school of magic. Any spells you cast of that school are more difficult to resist.
Benefit: Add +1 to the Difficulty Class for all saving throws against spells from the school of magic you select.
Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new school of magic.
And so based on this, "bonus" is any increase to a set numerical [value] of the spell. If we do not accept this definition of bonus, then we cannot also allow Spell Focus.
I vote for the first, since it sounds logical that it was overlooked.
There are a couple of ways to look at this: If there Is an order of operations, then it can be intentionally arranged to best benefit the caster. Why not? Going in one order means that it can go in another.
Another way to look at is is that there is no order of operations when applying rules which modify an action or ability. In point of fact, orders of operation aren't actually in the rules when it comes to applying feats. And so under this way of thinking, if one of the modifiers sets a condition which Qualifies another, its qualified.
Honestly, having looked at a bunch of examples, there's simply no rule which calls for an order of operations, and so the second (synergistic) rule is probably the correct one. But this is based on examples, not on RAW, so the debate needs more support on each side.
It wouldn't work for summoning 9th-level monsters, because the feat only applies when more than 1 creature is summoned. So, if you're using any Summon spell to summon monsters one level lower, whcih is either 1d3 for one level lower and 1d4+1 for at least 2 levels lower, then it would work.
Summoning multiple Glabezus is out, but summoning up to 5 Hezrous or up to 7 Vrocks isn't, especially if you manage to order multiples of them to use Dance of Ruin so that each round, a Dance activates :)
The debate over Added Summonings is still open :P The logic can be found in the spoiler:
Spoiler:
Quote:
Added Summonings (Su): At 15th level, whenever you summon a creature with the demon subtype or the fiendish template using a summon monster spell, you summon one additional creature of the same kind.
Notice that it says "you summon one additional creature of the same kind."
You are now summoning 2 Glabrezus. Which then synergizes with:
Ahem, arcane subdomain and the spell won't be increased by spell perfection -- honestly the eldritch heritage feats probably shouldn't either but that's not an argument I'm getting into right now.
Oh, yeah, that's a good point :)
The feat itself doesn't grant the bonus, its grants the ability which grants the bonus. Makes sense AS :) Ty for pointing it out.
Druid is a fairly solid choice, since it has much flexibility.
If one dislikes playing a Cleric (I wonder why...?), take a look at the Sorcerer counterpart to the Cleric, the Oracle. It can function very well in melee, have healing, spell casting capability, as well as have some skills or two.
Bard is another great one, and would probably synergize the best with the Barbarian. The Wizard can get some help from you too, although the Barbarian, if spec'd (and geared) right, would receive crazy bonuses.
Arcane Concordance would make both the Bard and the Wizard quite potent.
I was commenting specifically on the other posters point of view on how just making things more intellectual is the answer, and pointing out that it doesn't work, because then the players feel 'tricked' it taken advantage of.
That wasn't what I said, of course.
and whats I said is the standard reaction of optimizers is "how dare you do something Im not optimized for"
I've never encountered a gaming culture that felt so strongly entitled. Isn't that perhaps a bit of hyperbole?
Benefit: Each time you cast a summoning spell that conjures more than one creature, add one to the total number of creatures summoned.
Spell Perfection wrote:
Spell Perfection
You are unequaled at the casting of one particular spell.
Prerequisites: Spellcraft 15 ranks, at least three metamagic feats.
Benefit: Pick one spell which you have the ability to cast. Whenever you cast that spell you may apply any one metamagic feat you have to that spell without affecting its level or casting time, as long as the total modified level of the spell does not use a spell slot above 9th level. In addition, if you have other feats which allow you to apply a set numerical bonus to any aspect of this spell (such as Spell Focus, Spell Penetration, Weapon Focus [ray], and so on), double the bonus granted by that feat when applied to this spell.
And though currently debated, add in the Abyssal Bloodline power Added Summonings. Turn what would normally be 1 Glabrezu from the 9th level Summon Monster list into 4. Holy Mackerel ;)
Just because they used the same sentence does not, in any way, shape or form, means it has any relevance at all to Legato Piece.
Both spells you mention say you get command, but neither planar ally nor legato piece say that, s they do not give command.
You have come very late to this discussion, and perhaps you do not understand the context of this statement.
The argument is whether or not a Called Creature is magically bound tp abide the terms of service. I have not claimed that Planar Ally nor Legato Piece gives a conjurer carte-blanche command over it. I was explaining that what ever is in the specifically negotiated language is magically binding. You and I agree :)
VM mercenario wrote:
It falls on the not always clause.
Here: "Creatures you conjure usually- but not always- obey your commands."
I agree. The dilemma is that I couldn't find specific language within the printed material to support what I know to be true. It's there somewhere ;) If not, then we have a logical inconsistency in spite of what we all know to be correct.
VM mercenario wrote:
Just because they used the same sentence does not, in any way, shape or form, means it has any relevance at all to Legato Piece.
Both spells you mention say you get command, but neither planar ally nor legato piece say that, s they do not give command.
Ah, this is from a nuanced argument. I have already addressed the command issue. As for the first bit, we need to look at the clause under discussion:
Legato Piece wrote:
If you succeed at an opposed Charisma check against the creature (with a +0 to +6 bonus on your roll based on the nature of the service and the offered reward), it agrees to perform the service
Mpl was claiming that the parenthetical statement was taken from Planar Ally, and so it validates his assertion that one Must pay. I was showing him that it was in fact taken from Planar Binding, where its context is as an Incentive, and is not about required payment.
I appreciate that you've joined this conversation, but there is a mountain of technical disputes that one can easily trip over :) You and I agree on each of those statements.
And for ease of understanding, here is the context in which Obeyance and Binding are being discussed (from my end):
Spoiler:
3. The following Lines support my position that it is magically bound:
Planar Ally wrote:
At the end of its task, or when the duration bargained for expires, the creature returns to its home plane (after reporting back to you, if appropriate and possible).
And this one from Planar Binding, which assumes that the creature has been imprisoned and tortured, giving it every reason to kill you or simply return home in the absence of it being magically bound to complete the task:
Planar Binding wrote:
Once the requested service is completed, the creature need only to inform you to be instantly sent back whence it came. The creature might later seek revenge. If you assign some open-ended task that the creature cannot complete through its own actions, the spell remains in effect for a maximum of 1 day per caster level, and the creature gains an immediate chance to break free (with the same chance to resist as when it was trapped). Note that a clever recipient can subvert some instructions.
That would be a very courteous Glabrezu, especially since you wracked it with pain, and entrapped it until it caved in.
Both lines are explaining that it is magically bound to abide the terms of the service until said task is complete, or until enough time has passed that the magical binding has expired (1 day per caster level).
"Unlike with planar ally" you have to take this extra step and make a Charisma check.
Unfortunately that would require a specific, and unsupported reading of the word "Unlike," which in the English language is defined as
Quote:
un·like
/ˌənˈlīk/
Preposition
Different from; not similar to.
Adjective
Dissimilar or different from each other.
I think anyone else reading this thread will see your position as stubborn bickering. I have seen you do this in other posts, where you assert a position without support, and then aggressively defend it in the face of direct quotes from printed material. I have asked you repeatedly to support your positions with RAW, instead you assert that this is your "belief." Please either support your position by providing like-examples, or simply stop derailing this thread.
You also missed a very specific line, you quoted everything except the last sentence, which I will bold here:
Lago Piece:
This fast-paced tune harmonizes with the magical frequencies of another plane, allowing you to draw an extraplanar creature to you and bargain for its service. When you complete this performance, you call one or more outsiders as if using planar ally. Unlike with planar ally, the creature is not necessarily associated with your deity, and has an initial attitude of “indifferent” toward you. Because it is intrigued by your performance, it remains for up to 1 minute to hear the service you are requesting and the payment you are offering. If you succeed at an opposed Charisma check against the creature (with a +0 to +6 bonus on your roll based on the nature of the service and the offered reward), it agrees to perform the service. This ability otherwise works like planar ally.
"Otherwise" does not mean In Addition To, it means Different Than.
mplindustries wrote:
Common Sense suggests that "conjuring" is when you actually create the creature--i.e. when you summon or create it. You know that and I know that. Further, Planar Ally is pretty explicit in what it does--there's no ambiguity. The creature does what it agreed to and nothing more. You are not commanding it, you are making a deal.
I admire a person who goes with their gut, but that holds no weight against what the printed material says. Unfortunately, Summoning is not the act of "creating" a creature. The relevant text taken from the Summoning Sub-type passage:
Quote:
Summoning: A summoning spell instantly brings a creature or object to a place you designate. When the spell ends or is dispelled, a summoned creature is instantly sent back to where it came from.
Are you then claiming that Summoned creatures are not magically bound by the Conjuration General Rule to obey the caster? This is now the third time in this one thread where you've simply made a directly disprovable assertion. I can only recommend that you look for rules and quote them along side your statements, as you'll run into the trouble of being completely wrong, and sadly it will it look as if you're simply making stuff up.
mplindustries wrote:
The creature does what it agreed to and nothing more. You are not commanding it, you are making a deal.
It is magically bound to complete the service to which it has agreed. It Cannot choose Not to complete the task, and passages within Planar Binding, Gate, and Planar Ally indicate directly that once the creature has agreed, it must "Break Free" of some undefined force. You've been very careful to side step these passages. What are they breaking free of? Answer: They are Magically Bound to Obey their Conjurer, as defined by the Conjuration General rule.
mplindustries wrote:
With Legato, they do it because you convince it to via a Charisma check. They are bound to that task, but nothing else.
If I simply take this line, and disregard the entirety of your unsupportable position, I agree. In this one line, you sum up my position perfectly, they do it because the Charisma check magically binds them, not because they are paid. Offering them payment/reward grants a bonus to your Charisma check, but payment is not a requirement because the clause "Unlike Planar Ally" replaces, and not adds to the rules under Planar Ally. The parenthetical statement in Legato is sourced from Planar Binding, which is where we must go to gain context of Developer Intent.
mplindustries wrote:
I then suggested that if it applied to Planar Ally, it should also apply to teleport spells, because both were conjurations.
A couple of things going on here. First, they are required to do everything that the spell says they will do. You made a similar statement earlier, but have since contradicted yourself claiming that there's room for GM fiat. There is not. If a spell says that it will stay for up to 1 minute to listen, then the Called creature is magically required to do so. And Once they Agree, they are bound by the Conjuration General rule, which is a magical binding. Hence, my claim that they are magically bound stands firmly within RAW and fundamental game logic.
mplindustries wrote:
That quote in Gate doesn't support you're assertion at all. In fact, it counters it. If you were correct, the spell would not need to talk about control at all, because it would be automatically assumed.
I'm baffled, its almost as if you're reading things to suit your untenable positions ;) Firstly, thank you for finally acknowledging that other Calling spells are valid a printed sources to support a rules claim. Lets go over Gate.
The relevant passages are:
Gate wrote:
you cause the gate to open in the immediate vicinity of the desired creature and pull the subject through, willing or unwilling.
This is the permissive language that one expects within an ability's description. In spite of what they would prefer, Calling an outsider binds it to the terms as defined in the specific used to Call them. It has no real choice, as it is magically bound by the Conjuration General rule. Even here, you have control over them, and they are bound to obey your command to appear before you.
Gate wrote:
Deities and unique beings are under no compulsion to come through the gate
This is an exception to the Conjuration General rule.
Gate wrote:
In the case of a single creature, you can control it if its HD does not exceed your caster level.
This sentence spells out an exception to the Conjuration General rule. Please take a moment, read it, understand it. If you summon multiple creatures, you cannot control them-Exception. If you summon a single creature, but its HD exceed your Caster Level, you cannot control it-Exception.
Gate wrote:
If you choose to exact a longer or more involved form of service from a called creature, you must offer some fair trade in return for that service.
Again, you have total control over it, it will obey you as defined by the Conjuration General rule for the duration of the Gate spell. If you would like it to serve longer, this line introduces an Exception. It grants the Called creature a way to refuse said service. Without this line, we would assume that the creature will obey our commands.
Gate wrote:
The service exacted must be reasonable with respect to the promised favor or reward; see the lesser planar ally spell for appropriate rewards. Some creatures may want their payment in “livestock” rather than in coin, which could involve complications.
These two lines provide the creature a way to refuse service. Without them, we would assume that the Called creature would Obey us in the absence of specific rewards.
Fundamental Game Logic is What We Would Assume, In the Absence of Explicit Clauses which Call Out Exceptions.
Gate wrote:
After this is done, the creature is instantly freed to return to its own plane.
What is it freed from? The magic of the Conjuration General rule forcing it to obey my command. In this case, "my command" is defined by the terms of service agreed upon.
Gate wrote:
Failure to fulfill the promise to the letter results in your being subjected to service by the creature or by its liege and master, at the very least. At worst, the creature or its kin may attack you.
This is backlash built into the spell, so that the Conjurer is now subject to the terms of the magical effect. The Conjurer cannot simply decide he doesn't want to honor the fact that his failure to comply will lead to demonic servitude or death. This is magically bound to happen, because its what the spell explicitly says will happen.
mplindustries wrote:
Having the same wording does not mean that one power has anything to do with the other.
Admonishing Ray and Scorching Ray both contain the line "You may fire one ray, plus one additional ray for every four levels beyond 3rd (to a maximum of three rays at 11th level). Each ray requires a ranged touch attack to hit..." so obviously Admonishing Ray is a fire spell, right? Because Scorching Ray is?
They are only similar in that they are Spells, and use Ray effects, which are governed by the same General rule that governs Ranged Touch spells. See Here. We assume that the general rule applies, even though its not explicitly stated in each individual spell. It doesn't have to be, because the General rule Always applies unless explicit clauses within individual abilities say otherwise. The same is true for the Conjuration General rules.
mplindustries wrote:
See, this is reductio ad absurdum again. It is absurd to assume two abilities with some wording in common do the same thing.
Reductio ad absurdum would require me to claim that the permissions within Gate are the exact same permissions within Planar Ally and/or Planar Binding. I am specifically stating the fact that General Rules govern in all applicable cases, unless explicit clauses found within individual abilities say otherwise.
The Logic that I am presenting:
Major Premise: The General Rule Governs all applicably related rules.
Minor Premise: Explicit Clauses within Individual abilities must call out exceptions to the general rule.
Conclusion: All rules are Governed by the General rule, unless explicit clauses within individual abilities call out exceptions.
This logic chain is Always true in Pathfinder. You will not find an example which deviates from the above statement within the entirety of the Pathfinder rule set.
Read about Logic and Legal Reasoning, to get a better understanding of why your position is fundamentally untenable. Hint: Not all mammals can swim ;)
mplindustries wrote:
...really? I am using RAW and quoting material--the only material we have that is relevant.
You have cherry picked your quotes, and none of them support your direct assertions. In fact, they contradict your assertions (see the bit on Summoning above).
mplindustries wrote:
You are bringing in extra stuff (other spells no mentioned). This is a problem and it is distorting your view of the facts.
I have referenced Planar Binding because that is the direct source of the Opposed Charisma check. I have also, as a result of a sub-argument cited Gate and Planar binding to give credence to the fact that Calling is a form of Conjuration, and to also support the Fundamental Game Logic behind Calling and Conjuring. They are relevant to the specific points being debated.
mplindustries wrote:
I.e. the facts are, this ability duplicates Planar Ally (not any other spell). It does not make it free, it makes it harder to use, because the creature is not automatically willing to help you.
I'm very sorry boss, but you set a very low bar for fact. In fact you have mistaken "Belief" and "Common Sense" as game fact. I have demonstrated in both cases that you're simply, flat out, incorrect. This doesn't mean that you can't be correct, it just means that you have not been. As to this specific assertion, the mountain of printed material which I have provided to support my position speaks for itself ;)
The Arcane and Divine subdomains of Magic create auras that enhance CL of allies within 30 ft (not 100% on the distance).
Oh :) An awesome Controller focused Cleric build could massively pump its save DC.
Spell Focus, Enchantment: +1 to Save DC
Greater Spell focus, Enchantment: +1 to Save DC
Greater Eldritch Heritage, Arcane (Enchantment): +2 Save DC
Arcane Subdomain: Standard Action, +1 Save DC for 1 round.
Swift Cast a Spell in the same round, +5 to your Save DCs. Are there any other abilities to temporarily pump one's Save DCs :D? Lets get this to +10, make that Balor or Solar wet themselves at our presence.
A shimmering, blue and gold radiance surrounds you, enhancing arcane spells cast by your allies within its area. Any arcane spell cast by a creature within the area gains a +1 enhancement bonus to the DC of any saving throws against the spell, and can be cast as if one of the following metamagic feats was applied to it (without increasing the spell level or casting time): Enlarge Spell, Extend Spell, Silent Spell, or Still Spell (you choose the metamagic feat when you cast arcane concordance).
Combined with this from the FAQ:
Quote:
Do you count as your own ally?
You count as your own ally unless otherwise stated or if doing so would make no sense or be impossible. Thus, "your allies" almost always means the same as "you and your allies."
—Sean K Reynolds, 10/12/10
Changes my mind on a lot of abilities, anyone notice any other examples? Please post here for reference if you do :)
It is not explicitly clear that it replaces anything. Nothing in the description says so--it requires something additional.
Legato Piece says "Unlike with planar ally." That should be explicitly clear.
mplindustries wrote:
You change the things it says--not other stuff.
I agree, and so when Legato Piece says "Unlike with planar ally" it means In Replacement Of, not In Addition To. And it goes on to say
Legato Piece wrote:
If you succeed at an opposed Charisma check against the creature... it agrees to perform the service.
The text in the parenthesis is taken directly from Planar Binding:
Planar Binding wrote:
The check is assigned a bonus of +0 to +6 based on the nature of the service and the reward.
The Opposed Charisma check from Planar Binding replaces the Payment requirement of Planar Ally. The parenthetical statement comes from Planar Binding and is specifically a reward as incentive.
mplindustries wrote:
No, that line ("Creatures you conjure usually- but not always- obey your commands.") is part of the general conjuration rules, not part of the Called subsection.
I apologize, I can't wrap my head around your position. Conjuration is a type of Magic. The General section on Conjuration has rules which govern all types of Conjurations. Unless a sub-type, or a specific spell-effect contains explicit clauses which call for exceptions, all Conjurations are governed by the General rule. There are five sub-types:
They are all conjurations, and so are always written in the following format within a magical effect's description:
Planar Ally wrote:
School conjuration (calling) [see text]; Level cleric 4
Not all Conjurations are Calling, but all Callings are Conjuration.
mplindustries wrote:
Therefore, if you think a Called creature is "conjured" and thus the line about obeying your commands applies, then it should apply equally to people you teleport, which is also a conjuring effect.
In fact, calling is just teleporting except the target gets the ability to go back again.
This is an interesting dilemma as far as Teleporting is concerned. One that probably warrants its own thread, some research, and maybe even an FAQ. Even so, Calling is Not Teleportation, they are different effect types.
However, there is precedent for my position on Calling and the General Rule. Lets look at Gate, which is a Conjuration (Creation or Calling) spell. Read Gate's spell description Here, but note this following passage:
Gate wrote:
If you choose to call a kind of creature instead of a known individual, you may call either a single creature or several creatures. In either case, their total HD cannot exceed twice your caster level. In the case of a single creature, you can control it if its HD does not exceed your caster level. A creature with more HD than your caster level can't be controlled. Deities and unique beings cannot be controlled in any event. An uncontrolled being acts as it pleases, making the calling of such creatures rather dangerous. An uncontrolled being may return to its home plane at any time.
What kind of control, and to what extent? It does not explicitly identify the extent of the control, and so we must default to the General Rule of Conjured Creatures. As a result, we know that this creature will Obey our Commands for the duration of the Calling (1 round/lvl). As for the "usually" and "not always" clauses of the General Rule, the next paragraph explains that it is controlled unless the following explicit clause applies:
Gate wrote:
If you choose to exact a longer or more involved form of service from a called creature, you must offer some fair trade in return for that service. The service exacted must be reasonable with respect to the promised favor or reward; see the lesser planar ally spell for appropriate rewards. Some creatures may want their payment in “livestock” rather than in coin, which could involve complications. Immediately upon completion of the service, the being is transported to your vicinity, and you must then and there turn over the promised reward. After this is done, the creature is instantly freed to return to its own plane.
Freed from what? Your command. And so the Gate spell follows the fundamental assumptions of Conjuring creatures: They obey your commands unless a clause specifically allows them not to. In the case of Gate, it uses Planar Ally's explicit clauses: Obviously Suicidal, and Payment requirements.
mplindustries wrote:
Please stop referencing Planar Binding as if it means something to this discussion when nothing in the Legato text mentions Planar Binding in any way.
Planar Binding is relevant, because that is where the Opposed check was sourced, as I've shown. I have also used Planar Binding as reference to support my position on the Called creature being Magically Bound by the agreement, as I have now used Gate for the same purpose.
Mpl, I appreciate that you have a position, but I would need more than your assertions to argue from your position. Your position needs support from the printed material, I would find it useful to discuss your sources. You may even be right :) and that is ok too. But please support your position with RAW.
I wanted to pull this quote out specifically to dispel the notion that the terms of service aren't magically binding.
Planar Binding wrote:
Once the requested service is completed, the creature need only to inform you to be instantly sent back whence it came. The creature might later seek revenge. If you assign some open-ended task that the creature cannot complete through its own actions, the spell remains in effect for a maximum of 1 day per caster level, and the creature gains an immediate chance to break free (with the same chance to resist as when it was trapped). Note that a clever recipient can subvert some instructions.
If it is not magically bound, then what exactly is it breaking free of? Reading the entire passage, which lists several ways in which the magical binding can be broken, it is impossible not to see that the creature is magically bound.
If someone can find an explicit clause somewhere which contradicts this, that would be very helpful and insightful :)
However, you are not getting a full minute, but up to a minute. Which means that the creature can decide to leave earlier if you are not starting to talk about the service and the payment.
And if you try to cast a spell at your extraplanar guest, he can just disappear in thin air, as nothing binds him to stay the full minute.
Ah, good point and good call :) You're suggesting that until he agrees, he is not magically bound to remain. So long as the Bard doesn't 'attack' the Outsider, I would agree. Note that casting Compulsion effects on an unwilling target counts as attacking. Negotiation is governed by Diplomacy and the relevant text is:
Quote:
Diplomacy is generally ineffective in combat and against creatures that intend to harm you or your allies in the immediate future.
Well, you just attacked it, entering combat and the Outsider now intends to harm you or your allies in the immediate future. :) Good call.
However, I would postulate that so long as the Bard does not attack, the entity could not leave before 1 minute is up because Legato Piece grants the Bard a full minute. The Bard may conclude before 60 seconds has elapsed, but not before. Hence, "up to" 1 minute, as needed. It is a specifically called out duration, and so the creature must remain until that minute is up (unless attacked which would end negotiations). I'm standing on the principle that explicit clauses do exactly what they say they do, and that minute is an explicit clause.
Very good point though, I'll have to amend the guide that I'm working on based on this point :) Thank you!
I think you are reading into this charisma check a lot.
You are assuming it's some kind of a bonus effect replacing the cash, rather than what I see it as: an extra chance for the power the fail.
Ah, I can see where you're coming from. However, Legato Piece doesn't say "in addition to" it says "Unlike." It then describes all of the ways that Legato Differs from Planar Ally. This means In Replacement Of, not In Addition To.
Let me pull out the specific line on this matter:
Legato Piece wrote:
If you succeed at an opposed Charisma check against the creature (with a +0 to +6 bonus on your roll based on the nature of the service and the offered reward), it agrees to perform the service.
There are two sentences here, the first being the complete rule:
1. If you Succeed at an opposed Charisma check against the creature, it agrees to perform the service.
2. With a +0 to +6 bonus on your roll based on the nature of the service and the offered reward.
The Charisma check Replaces the payment as the means by which one gets the Called outsider to agree. That is explicitly clear. Also, perhaps you're missing the context of the parenthetical statement. If it does not like the task, and if you offer no reward, then you do not get a bonus to your Opposed check. The direct context in which the payment is mentioned is specifically about getting a bonus, it is not stated as a requirement but as an incentive.
mplindustries wrote:
Also note that payment does not equal reward. You must pay them for the service, then you can get a bonus on the roll by asking for something aligned with their outlook or giving a reward. The reward is on top of the payment.
Unfortunately this is an interpretation irrespective of context: "and the offered reward." Its not a required payment, its a reward to improve its attitude toward the service.
mplindustries wrote:
It is using the term Indifferent to indicate that there are no bonues to the Charisma check from attitude and so that a normally hostile thing won't immediately kill you, nor will a normally helpful thing instantly help anyway. The Indifference is there to make the power work at all. It is one minute "to hear the service you are requesting and the payment you are offering." It is not one minute to do whatever you feel like.
Ah, sorry again bud :( This is all conjecture. Attitude does not directly adjust the Charisma check at all, not even positively. However, Attitude is a game mechanic that is applicable in any social challenge, and changing someone's attitude to Helpful confers synergistic benefits. The full context is "initial Attitude of Indifferent," which means that it can be adjusted. Diplomacy is the non-magical means to do this. There are no specific clauses which prohibit the use of Diplomacy during this minute long negotiation. Though your choice to Golden Rule it otherwise is probably fine at your table, but is not something one can stand on in a general, RAW-based discussion.
mplindustries wrote:
I think, once again, you are misinterpreting this.
"Creatures you conjure usually- but not always- obey your commands."
It does not say "creatures you conjure are magically obligated to obey your commands unless the spell specifically says they are not."
A few things going on here :) Yes, those are not its specific words. Your interpretation is also not its specific words. And so one would need to find support in the printed material to validate either position. :) I am not married to this interpretation, however, I've spent quite a bit of time looking into it. Some things to consider:
1. That line is not GM fiat. This is an explanation that unless some other specific rule gives the Called creature a right to refuse, it will obey your commands. Because this is taken from the General Rule on Conjured creatures, the game designers must write it in a way that acknowledges that specific clauses might be exceptions to the default assumption. The default assumption is that they will obey your commands, as they would be if you Summoned a creature. Conjuration effects are magical. Therefore it is magic which causes them to obey your commands.
If your position were true, after you have paid it and made your opposed Charisma check, even if you succeed it could then just kill you, or return home since Calling "grants the creature the one-time ability to return to its plane of origin." Since it is not magically bound to complete the task, this spell will never work. The Developers did not make a spell which never works. If you would like RAI, this is Legato's fluff: "Your skilled playing can conjure up supernatural servants."
2. Because the creature is expected to obey commands by default, what would trigger said creature to not obey? Again, this is not GM Fiat, each spell calls out specific ways by which the Called entity can refuse to be bound to the terms of the command. I have already gone into detail on this in my previous post, but lets cover it again for good measure: 1. Obviously Suicidal 2. You lose the Opposed Charisma check. Those are the only two conditions by which it is allowed to refuse to obey.
3. The following Lines support my position that it is magically bound:
Planar Ally wrote:
At the end of its task, or when the duration bargained for expires, the creature returns to its home plane (after reporting back to you, if appropriate and possible).
And this one from Planar Binding, which assumes that the creature has been imprisoned and tortured, giving it every reason to kill you or simply return home in the absence of it being magically bound to complete the task:
Planar Binding wrote:
Once the requested service is completed, the creature need only to inform you to be instantly sent back whence it came. The creature might later seek revenge. If you assign some open-ended task that the creature cannot complete through its own actions, the spell remains in effect for a maximum of 1 day per caster level, and the creature gains an immediate chance to break free (with the same chance to resist as when it was trapped). Note that a clever recipient can subvert some instructions.
That would be a very courteous Glabrezu, especially since you wracked it with pain, and entrapped it until it caved in.
Both lines are explaining that it is magically bound to abide the terms of the service until said task is complete, or until enough time has passed that the magical binding has expired (1 day per caster level).
mplindustries wrote:
Further, the idea that "Calling" is "conjuring" a creature is silly to me.
Ah, I do not mean to be rude, but I thought from reading some of your other thread contributions that you had better game mastery. Calling is a specific sub-type of Conjuration. Teleportation is also a specific sub-type of Conjuration. Planar Ally Calls an Outsider. Teleporting your friend is not Calling your friend. Please read the relevant passage here:
Spoiler:
Conjuration
Each conjuration spell belongs to one of five subschools. Conjurations transport creatures from another plane of existence to your plane (calling); create objects or effects on the spot (creation); heal (healing); bring manifestations of objects, creatures, or forms of energy to you (summoning); or transport creatures or objects over great distances (teleportation). Creatures you conjure usually—but not always—obey your commands.
A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it.
The creature or object must appear within the spell's range, but it does not have to remain within the range.
Calling: A calling spell transports a creature from another plane to the plane you are on. The spell grants the creature the one-time ability to return to its plane of origin, although the spell may limit the circumstances under which this is possible. Creatures who are called actually die when they are killed; they do not disappear and reform, as do those brought by a summoning spell (see below). The duration of a calling spell is instantaneous, which means that the called creature can't be dispelled.
Creation: A creation spell manipulates matter to create an object or creature in the place the spellcaster designates. If the spell has a duration other than instantaneous, magic holds the creation together, and when the spell ends, the conjured creature or object vanishes without a trace. If the spell has an instantaneous duration, the created object or creature is merely assembled through magic. It lasts indefinitely and does not depend on magic for its existence.
Healing: Certain divine conjurations heal creatures or even bring them back to life.
Summoning: A summoning spell instantly brings a creature or object to a place you designate. When the spell ends or is dispelled, a summoned creature is instantly sent back to where it came from, but a summoned object is not sent back unless the spell description specifically indicates this. A summoned creature also goes away if it is killed or if its hit points drop to 0 or lower, but it is not really dead. It takes 24 hours for the creature to reform, during which time it can't be summoned again.
When the spell that summoned a creature ends and the creature disappears, all the spells it has cast expire. A summoned creature cannot use any innate summoning abilities it may have.
Teleportation: A teleportation spell transports one or more creatures or objects a great distance. The most powerful of these spells can cross planar boundaries. Unlike summoning spells, the transportation is (unless otherwise noted) one-way and not dispellable.
Teleportation is instantaneous travel through the Astral Plane. Anything that blocks astral travel also blocks teleportation.
mplindustries wrote:
you can't actually jump to conclusions like that. Abilities do what they say they do and no more.
Quote:
It functions exactly as it says it functions: as Planar Ally with an extra fail condition.
These two statements cannot coexist when made in the same argument by the same person :P
Point of note: The performance does mention payment specifically. I believe you still need to offer payment equivalent to a Planar Ally.
Here is the line in question:
Legato Piece wrote:
If you succeed at an opposed Charisma check against the creature (with a +0 to +6 bonus on your roll based on the nature of the service and the offered reward), it agrees to perform the service.
Offering it payment grants you a bonus to the opposed check. Not offering it a payment is simply the opposed check.
Yeah, lets see if we can't source and hammer out these points :)
mplindustries wrote:
Can you point out in this description where it says any of the following:
1) You do not have to pay the outsiders (it works like planar ally)
That is found within the specific exceptions listed in Legato Piece:
Legato Piece wrote:
Unlike with planar ally, the creature is not necessarily associated with your deity, and has an initial attitude of “indifferent” toward you. Because it is intrigued by your performance, it remains for up to 1 minute to hear the service you are requesting and the payment you are offering. If you succeed at an opposed Charisma check against the creature (with a +0 to +6 bonus on your roll based on the nature of the service and the offered reward), it agrees to perform the service.
Planar Ally requires payment to obtain agreeance, however, Legato calls for an Opposed Charisma check. One can offer No Payment, but if one does offer payment, doing so will grant him a bonus to the Opposed check.
mplindustries wrote:
2) That you can improve its attitude before making the Charisma check (you get 1 minute to explain the service and the payment offered, not to screw around with diplomacy and other performances)
This is incorrect. By specifically calling out that its attitude is Indifferent, it is referring to the Diplomacy rule, which is what regulates attitudes. In one minute, one can attempt to improve its attitude toward yourself or the task at hand via diplomacy, or spells such as Charm Monster, Dominate Monster, Vengeful Outrage, Gease, etc. Diplomacy being non-magical is the safe road, and as one can see in the Diplomacy rules, coaxing a creature into having a Helpful attitude is.. helpful.
mplindustries wrote:
3) That the creature is magically bound to complete the task (it seems to me that they just agree to do it in exchange for payment and no magical force is enacted)
I have sourced this rule in my response to VMHR :) Creatures will obey commands when Called, but are given specific means by which they can refuse--as detailed in each individual method of Calling.
mplindustries wrote:
4) Where is anything about Planar Binding mentioned?
Legato Piece is not simply Planar Ally. The Opposed Charisma check is derived from Planar Binding, and to understand how Legato deviates from Planar Ally, we must look at its source.
mplindustries wrote:
It sure seems to me that this is basically "Bardic Planar Ally" and that it offers no advantage over the normal version.
Not having to pay, Indifferent attitude, and the fact that it opens up the entire library of Outsiders 12 HD or less are quite significant.
Heya, and thank you for having this discussion with me. Please read my responses as fact checking, rather than rebuttal :) If I can't source the RAW, then I will revise that section.
VRMH wrote:
I'm not seeing that in the rules. It's a contract at best, not a mind control.
Its found within the RAW of this quote from the general section on Conjuration:
Quote:
Creatures you conjure usually—but not always—obey your commands.
As to what triggers its ability to Not Obey the agreement/command, that is found within the specific language of the spell used to Call them. In this case, Legato Piece, Planar Ally, and to a lesser extent Planar Binding.
Legato Piece wrote:
Because it is intrigued by your performance, it remains for up to 1 minute to hear the service you are requesting and the payment you are offering. If you succeed at an opposed Charisma check against the creature (with a +0 to +6 bonus on your roll based on the nature of the service and the offered reward), it agrees to perform the service.
Legato uses the Planar Binding condition that if I fail to win the opposed Charisma check, it is not then magically bound to to any agreement. If I win the check, it must complete the task, and abide the terms of the agreement as per Conjuration.
Planar Ally wrote:
Few if any creatures will accept a task that seems suicidal (remember, a called creature actually dies when it is killed, unlike a summoned creature)
Planar Ally allows the Called creature to refuse to agree to Suicidal tasks. If the task isn't suicidal, though it may be dangerous, so long as I win the opposed Charisma check, it is then magically bound to complete the task, and abide the terms of the agreement.
Planar Binding wrote:
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. If the creature wins the opposed check, it refuses service. New offers, bribes, and the like can be made or the old ones reoffered every 24 hours. This process can be repeated until the creature promises to serve, until it breaks free, or until you decide to get rid of it by means of some other spell. Impossible demands or unreasonable commands are never agreed to. If you ever roll a natural 1 on the Charisma check, the creature breaks free of the spell's effect and can escape or attack you.
This passage from Planar Binding is not actually the language of Legato Piece. However it is the source from which its Opposed Charisma check mechanic is derived. There are a set of conditions within this passage which will also grant the Called outsider the ability to refuse the command. But again, once it agrees to the negotiated task and terms, it is magically bound by the Conjuration general rule to obey.
VRMH wrote:
No it isn't. The Outsider's presence and starting attitude is magically determined, anything else can be mundane. That's my take on it anyway.
Everything that happens between the conjurer and the conjured is regulated by the permissions and conditions of the magical effect used to Conjure. What you are asserting would be true only if the Bard encounters the outsider at, say, a Bar, or tanning next to the pool at the country club. In that case, a negotiation would not be a magical effect, and the conditions of obeyance granted by Conjuration magic aren't present.
VRMH wrote:
How'd you figure that? If I missed something and you can indeed call specific individuals, then this Masterpiece has some intriguing additional possibilities.
Its found within the specific permissions granted by Planar Ally:
Planar Ally wrote:
If you know an individual creature's name, you may request that individual by speaking the name during the spell (though you might get a different creature anyway)
This only grants the possibility, and so one would need to ask their GM if he will allow this possibility as a generally predictable result.
VRMH wrote:
I'm not convinced the creature is "bound" as such, but the Performance stipulates the Outsider will agree when you win the opposed Cha check. And that's all that matters, really.
As was shown above, the only way that the creature is able to "not obey" is if the task is suicidal, and if you lose the Opposed Charisma check. The Opposed Charisma check is you asserting your will over it, or cowing it into submission, or sweet talking it, or however one prefers to think of it. But a successful check forces the Called creature into obeyance whether it likes the task or not. And until its task is complete, or until X numbers of days have passed, it is bound to complete said task and by the terms that are forced upon it.
Basically Calling is a specific type of magic, and all of its language and permissions are magical. The logic here is the same as a creature under the effect of a Charm spell (though the Conjuration clause is not Mind-affecting, but rather a specific component of Conjuration magic). A creature that is under the effect of Charm Person, is under a magical effect. Charm person has specific language which allows an affected creature to ignore certain complusions and even to attempt additional saves, but it is otherwise bound by the specific language within the spell. Again, the ways in which a Called creature is able to not obey are specifically defined by the means by which they are Called (Legato Piece, Planar Ally, and Planar Binding in this case)
VRMH wrote:
Edit: Oh, and another thing: what if the negotiations fail? The Outsider is Called, and not bound by any summoning circle. It may decide to go on a rampage instead of leaving quietly...
Yeah, there's some risk here for sure :) If one rolls a Natural 1 on the Opposed Charisma check, Planar Binding says that "the creature breaks free of the spell's effect and can escape or attack you." However, Planar Binding assume that the creature is trapped in a Magic Circle. In this case, its not and remains for 1 minute because it is Intrigued. Its attitude is Indifferent, and so if the negotiation fails it will just leave. There's no language suggesting that a failed negotiation should lead to ruin and carnage.
And also, it seems that this can be repeated ad nauseam, gaining an army of 12 HD Outsiders for the duration of the task. Pretty wicked for a Bard effect.
At level 11, with 31 rounds of BP, that's 3 Glabrezus bound to a task such as "In three days, you will help me ambush and kill the evil king and his army as he travels through this area. Do nothing to harm anyone or anything until I instruct otherwise, sitting there <points> doing nothing until I instruct otherwise." Day Two: 3 more Glabrezus. Day Three: 3 more Glabrezus. An 11th level Bard with a possible 9 Glabrezus.
Since they must stick around until the task is complete, or until the end of the 11th day, I could technically get 3 Glabrezus per day for 11 days. 33 Glabrezus.
