|
Again though, can you give specific examples of chain binding affecting a game?I cannot. And if we change the rule, I never will.
I have, however played in playgroups where even learning spells like planar binding, polymorph any object, etc., was strongly discouraged or outright banned because the DM didn't want to go to the effort of figuring out what was and wasn't an acceptable use of the spell every single session.
It's a shame to me that many of these spells don't see play because of their potential brokenness.
I'm not sure that a DM not wanting to take the time to figure out additional plot-lines means the spell is broken. I think it means that the using the spell is game changing.
This is true of many of the powerful spells. I'm not sure that nerfing them all is the answer. Perhaps just the recognition that certain spells will absolutely affect the game-play is enough so that people can make informed choices about whether they want them in their game.
In fact, this point, or variations thereof, is made in most of the Planar Books regarding Plane Traveling spells. Individual DMs have to decide how their cosmology works and what is allowed and what is not. This is just a feature of certain elements of the game.
The problem is that the solution many call for, the elimination or nerfing of these spells, removes the option for those DMs and Players who do want to take their games in that direction.
I'm not sure that a DM not wanting to take the time to figure out additional plot-lines means the spell is broken. I think it means that the using the spell is game changing.
This is true of many of the powerful spells. I'm not sure that nerfing them all is the answer. Perhaps just the recognition that certain spells will absolutely affect the game-play is enough so that people can make informed choices about whether they want them in their game.
In fact, this point, or variations thereof, is made in most of the Planar Books regarding Plane Traveling spells. Individual DMs have to decide how their cosmology works and what is allowed and what is not. This is just a feature of certain elements of the game.
The problem is that the solution many call for, the elimination or nerfing of these spells, removes the option for those DMs and Players who do want to take their games in that direction.
I greatly agree that we cannot and should not nerf all powerful, game-altering spells. Therefore, I have proposed that we establish criteria by which to judge the value of a highly exploitable spell. I proposed three earlier:
How many players will want the things exploiting the spell can give them?
How much DM effort does it take to prevent the spell from unbalancing his game?
How interesting is a game defiend by the use and abuse of the spell?
In my opinion, Animate Dead meets these tests; Even Fabricate probably does; Planar Binding fails.
(Fabricate would fail a fourth test, which would be something like: can the setting as presented exist if NPCs use this spell intelligently)
EDIT: A Solution like requiring Truenames, posted upthread, would preserve the functionality for groups that *want* to deal with the ramifications.
|
|
A creature who fails a saving throw does not know a spell was cast on them.
Wow. I can't believe I missed that rule. Care to point out where in the SRD or rulebooks that is stated so I can go over it and fix it in my brain.
I always assumed that all those adventures where it says that this creature or that creature is going to be pretty ticked off after the charm wore off knew what they were talking about.
Who knew it was not only mind altering but memory altering as well. I mean here is this monster: hate...hate...hate...charm...love... charm wears off...? So after the charm wears off the monster justs assumes that it always loved the other creature. Do I understand this right?
I missed that beta limited the effect of diplomacy to 4 hours... that's pretty stupid. Apparently its impossible to make friends in D+D. (Because mechanically, that's a diplomacy check.) Being friends with someone should last until they *do something* which makes you not want to be their friend. I don't suddenly start hating people because I haven't seen them in 4 hours.
Well, you'll note the "DM's discretion" proviso which can allow it to last longer. Whether or not the attitude adjustment is permanent ought (IMO) to consider the intent of the PC using Diplomacy (i.e., is he honestly trying to "make friends" or just trying to turn the situation to his own selfish advantage) and the mindset of the NPC whose attitude is being adjusted.
A real life example: You're at a car lot and Mr. Eagle's Splendor himself convinces you that it's really in your best interest to sign a loan and buy a particular car. Later that day or lying in bed in the wee hours, you regret spending more than you meant to and think, "That manipulative jerk! I can't believe he played me like that!" He's hardly going to make it onto your Christmas card list.
I certainly see no reason why a spell ending of which they had no knowledge should have any effect on the matter. The last reaction adjustment was non-magical.
But it began from a temporarily-magically-altered baseline. By this argument, if I cast Bull's Strength on myself just before levelling up at level 4 and then add my ability modifier to Strength, I actually get to keep all 5 points of Strength permanently after the Bull's Strength wears off because "the last adjustment was non-magical."
I missed that beta limited the effect of diplomacy to 4 hours... that's pretty stupid. Apparently its impossible to make friends in D+D.
Wait -- everything that isn't explicitly covered by a skill is impossible in D&D? That makes about as much sense as saying that women can't get pregnant in D&D because it doesn't mention it in the Acrobatics skill description.
Actually, I'm wondering if there are *non-broken* uses of the Planar Binding spells.
The "non-broken" use of it would be if you used a hefty bribe (in the form of something valuable like magic items) to convince an outsider to perform some task for you, like Planar Ally. It's just the "get something for nothing" aspect that causes problems. (That, and outsiders who have CR-inappropriate abilities.)
|
A creature who fails a saving throw does not know a spell was cast on them. In many cases (eg, fireball), its probably fairly obvious. Charm Monster, however, has no obvious physical clues that you were the subject of a spell. It changes how you think, which isn't something you can point at. So if you fail the save you know nothing other than the wizard cast a spell. Now, if you have spellcraft, you might know what spell it was, and after the charm wears off you might be able to put 1 and 1 together, but that requires a successful spellcraft check.
I'd have to disagree, Charm Monster has both a Verbal and Somatic component. Whether that monster has ranks in spellcraft is irrelevant when a mage is chanting and waving his hand in front of him. It may not know what the spell is, but it should be fairly obvious that he's casting something, whether he makes the save or not. Now, that does not (or shouldn't, imo) include monsters with incredibly low intelligence scores, or no intelligence score at all.
That makes about as much sense as saying that women can't get pregnant in D&D because it doesn't mention it in the Acrobatics skill description.
"Daddy? Where do babies come from?"
"Well, when a mommy and a daddy love each other very much, they come together and roll 3d6 six times, in order."|
|
So there are rules that specifically tell you that you know a spell was cast on you when you *make* your saving throw. There are no such rules for if you fail. Thus, if you fail, you don't know - because the rules don't tell you that you know.
LOL
That's your argument?
See, in my world, sure, I may not have seen the spell being cast and I may not have realized it while I am under the influence of the spell but when the spell duration is over, I'm pretty sure something was up. I mean - I can't stand that guy and all of a sudden I loaned him my favorite horse and let him take my wife on a date? Now on the off chance I saw the man I disliked waving his hands and mumbling under his breath right before I gave him the horse - I think I'll have a pretty good idea he did something to my mind... At least thats how it works in my world.
|
|
So there are rules that specifically tell you that you know a spell was cast on you when you *make* your saving throw. There are no such rules for if you fail. Thus, if you fail, you don't know - because the rules don't tell you that you know.
This could very easily be argued both ways. It doesn't say one way or the other whether the creature knows or not.
|
|
A creature who fails a saving throw does not know a spell was cast on them. In many cases (eg, fireball), its probably fairly obvious. Charm Monster, however, has no obvious physical clues that you were the subject of a spell. It changes how you think, which isn't something you can point at. So if you fail the save you know nothing other than the wizard cast a spell. Now, if you have spellcraft, you might know what spell it was, and after the charm wears off you might be able to put 1 and 1 together, but that requires a successful spellcraft check.I'd have to disagree, Charm Monster has both a Verbal and Somatic component. Whether that monster has ranks in spellcraft is irrelevant when a mage is chanting and waving his hand in front of him. It may not know what the spell is, but it should be fairly obvious that he's casting something, whether he makes the save or not. Now, that does not (or shouldn't, imo) include monsters with incredibly low intelligence scores, or no intelligence score at all.Assuming the efreet bothers to ask (and it won't - it perceives the wizard's actions in the best possible light after the charm goes off, remember?), there are literally hundreds of spells the wizard could have cast.
Further, it takes *6 seconds* to cast a spell. Less than 6 seconds actually. Efreet: "Excuse me, did you just say something?" Wizard: "Sorry, clearing my throat."
Touché.. :)
Assuming the efreet bothers to ask (and it won't - it perceives the wizard's actions in the best possible light after the charm goes off, remember?), there are literally hundreds of spells the wizard could have cast.
Further, it takes *6 seconds* to cast a spell. Less than 6 seconds actually. Efreet: "Excuse me, did you just say something?" Wizard: "Sorry, clearing my throat."
Not that I really think that this whole thing matters that much but an average efreet has a +14 spellcraft bonus. So it probably would identify the spell being cast and will likely know you cast charm if you did it within it's senses.
Not that it would have an effect for the duration of the charm.
|
|
That makes about as much sense as saying that women can't get pregnant in D&D because it doesn't mention it in the Acrobatics skill description."Daddy? Where do babies come from?"
"Well, when a mommy and a daddy love each other very much, they come together and roll 3d6 six times, in order."
hehehe
^_^
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I almost hesitate to ask, but I see Gate mentioned elsewhere as a problem spell. In what way is Gate supposed to break the game?
One that I've seen is the notion of going to another plane, using gate to summon a specific enemy of up to twice your level and then having them bend over and let you beat on them for 1 round per level. No save, no SR. You spend 1000 xp to summon them but you cash in more xp than that based on the monster you just killed (assuming your DM gives out xp for that), plus you liquidate difficult creatures that enable you to then 'beat' an adventure more easily, go recover the creature's treasure after it's dead, etc.
Now, this trick requires several assumptions:
1. Gate lets you call an "extraplanar creature." It is ambiguous as to whether this means a creature with the [extraplanar] subtype, or simply a creature which is extraplanar relative to you - that is, on another plane. Either interpretation makes grammatical sense. Unlike the planar ally/binding spells, it is not limited specifically to outsiders/elementals.
If it's the subtype, the use of this trick shrinks dramatically. If it's latter option, virtually any non-unique/deific creature is fair game.
2. The spell lets you "control" a creature but doesn't stipulate what it will or won't do. It doesn't specifically say anything about reasonable commands, self-destructive behavior, or the like, as charm does. It does stipulate bargaining for long-term services, but for short-term (1 rd/lvl) stuff it doesn't place any specific limits or guidelines on the degree of control.
So, if you take the broadest possible interpretation, "control" means ABSOLUTE control and you can make it do anything you want, including sit there and do nothing while your allies coup de grace it - you have to concentrate to maintain the control, so you can't do all that much to it yourself.
Is this a silly application of gate? Sure. Any player trying this kind of crap would deservedly get laughed out of the room. But, you will find the Psychic Robot type posters who insist with every fiber of their being that this is an absolutely legitimate and rational application of the rules as written (and, of course, a horribly failure-ridden abomination to gaming that just makes the game unplayably awful, yada yada).
Is it theoretically possible within the language the way it's written? If you squint a little and take the most favorable interpretation of ambiguity as absolute fact, then sure. So, should we rewrite the spells to clarify and close the theoretical loophole? Sure. Why not. We are doing this big playtest for PF and rewriting all kinds of stuff, so why NOT go ahead and insert clarifying sentences. Rest assured, the grousers will always find something else about which to hyperventilate, but just because they have bad attitudes doesn't mean we can't make the new PF a better one.
So, to suggest a clarification in the chapter on Magic, when takling about Summoning/Calling spells:
"Summoned or called creatures may not use summoning or calling powers or abilities, nor any variation of wish or miracle."
under gate
"Creatures called with this spell will fight for the caster but cannot be compelled to perform obviously self-destructive actions."
or perhaps better still:
"A caster or any ally of the caster attacking a creature called with a gate spell is immediately afflicted with a mark of justice."
Under wish
"Creatures able to grant wishes as a spell-like ability cannot be compelled or influenced to do so by any magical or mundane means."
or even...
"A creature using magical means to compel a creature with the wish spell-like ability to use it on their behalf are immediately afflicted with a mark of justice; in any event, the wishhas no effect."
To add to this:
"Those who bargain for a wish through ordinary Diplomacy must accept a geas from the wish-granting creature as payment for their service. Until such time as the geas is completed, the character cannot benefit from any wish spell-like ability from any creature. The nature of wishes is such that a wish cannot be granted while an obligation to another wish-granting creature remains. This does not prevent a character from casting wish himself or use a ring of wishes or similar magic item."
- Yeah, I know, then we fall back to the whole 'rational actor' model of arguing about whether the genie or devil or solar or whatever think it's a good idea and just decide to do it of their own free will so why would there be consequences... blah blah blah Do we really want a 3-page legal appendix just for the wish spell? Bleah.
Just a few thoughts...
Assuming the efreet bothers to ask (and it won't - it perceives the wizard's actions in the best possible light after the charm goes off, remember?), there are literally hundreds of spells the wizard could have cast.
Further, it takes *6 seconds* to cast a spell. Less than 6 seconds actually. Efreet: "Excuse me, did you just say something?" Wizard: "Sorry, clearing my throat."
Not that I really think that this whole thing matters that much but an average efreet has a +14 spellcraft bonus. So it probably would identify the spell being cast and will likely know you cast charm if you did it within it's senses.
Not that it would have an effect for the duration of the charm.
Yes, assuming it can see you casting it. There are... ways around that. Like having it be a contingent spell. There are of course creatures that don't have spellcraft.
You can, of course, achieve basically the same effect non-magically just by having the Bard talk to it for a little bit.
Yes. That is kinda why I did say "if you did it within it's senses."
|
|
So you actually treat the Efreet nicely. I'm not saying your run a con job necessarily. Establishing a long-term partnership with a creature that can hand out Wish 3/day is a good move. Your example is an example of bluff, no diplomacy. Diplomacy doesn't involve taking advantage of people, it involves actually being nice/friendly/persuasive.
Now I think you are making assumptions about Efreeti that are not actually backed up elsewhere.
From my MM, "Effret are infamous for their hatred of servitude, desire for revenge, cruel nature and ability to beguile and mislead."
Rather than assuming an Efreet who is summoned with a Planar Bind (servitude) is capable of being reasoned with, I as a DM would start with the assumption the creature is going to be out for revenge from the get-go and if given a chance will seek to flip the tables, though it might, for a while, talk a friendly game.
But I think, long story short, a lot of this is about playstyles and DM styles. My style of DMing a world would seem to leave you feeling shortchanged. On the otherhand, converting the rules to your style of playing is going to leave me feeling that the game world has just got a little smaller.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I missed that beta limited the effect of diplomacy to 4 hours... that's pretty stupid. Apparently its impossible to make friends in D+D.Wait -- everything that isn't explicitly covered by a skill is impossible in D&D? That makes about as much sense as saying that women can't get pregnant in D&D because it doesn't mention it in the Acrobatics skill description.
Yes, you see, because D&D is like a video game that must be entirely rule driven. There is ABSOLUTELY no room for intelligent DMing.
Call me when you get this thing idiot-proofed, because I'm seeing a whole lot of idiots coming down the pike.
;-)
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
But I think, long story short, a lot of this is about playstyles and DM styles. My style of DMing a world would seem to leave you feeling shortchanged. On the otherhand, converting the rules to your style of playing is going to leave me feeling that the game world has just got a little smaller.
What he said. I know you can play "Inductively", treating the game rules as first principles, and everything possible derives from them - and nothing not deriving from them is possible, or dubious at very best.
I find this style of play both immensely limiting and immensely prone to falling into the inherent limits of the system. Collectively taking a step back, and preferring a (possibly) flawed, but simple rule to a (possible) waterproof, but extremely unwieldy one just increases the fun of it.
You will need to trust your GM anyway. They can hose you. Totally and fully within not only the RAW but also within the recommended behavior.
As I think about it, it seems to me that perhaps the best solution is this - a creature with more HD than the caster cannot be compelled, it must be bargained with. Simple, elegant and leaves a whole bunch of options open.
But unfortunately doesn't help this a bit because efreet only have 10 HD. The caster has more than that by the time they can cast Planar Binding.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
As I think about it, it seems to me that perhaps the best solution is this - a creature with more HD than the caster cannot be compelled, it must be bargained with. Simple, elegant and leaves a whole bunch of options open.
But unfortunately doesn't help this a bit because efreet only have 10 HD. The caster has more than that by the time they can cast Planar Binding.
And the Efreet are lawful evil, devious, and vengeful and they are ruled by a sultan who may just get ticked off and is justified in sending one of his pashas after you ... and that is in the book, not some ad hoc thing thrown in by evil DMs.
This argument hasn't gone very far but I'm sure Jason has a lot of ideas to work with. Ernest and Wicht and many others have respectfully made some clear cases for whether and how the rules should be changed.
|
|
"A creature using magical means to compel a creature with the wish spell-like ability to use it on their behalf are immediately afflicted with a mark of justice; in any event, the wishhas no effect."
To add to this:
"Those who bargain for a wish through ordinary Diplomacy must accept a geas from the wish-granting creature as payment for their service. Until such time as the geas is completed, the character cannot benefit from any wish spell-like ability from any creature. The nature of wishes is such that a wish cannot be granted while an obligation to another wish-granting creature remains. This does not prevent a character from casting wish himself or use a ring of wishes or similar magic item."
I really like the geas/mark of justice solution. I do believe that these type of "problems" (ie wish chaining) are ridiculous picking of nits, however, this solution allows a very close approximation of the spirit of the RAW. You ARE supposed to bargain, and the DM determines what bargains are acceptable. A Geas from a Solar would likely be stomachable for a good character. A Geas from an Efreet or Balor - not so much.
One other option that could neatly handle the wish issue is to require services of commensurate value to the wish granted. In other words, if you want a +5 stat boost wish, you better have 125k sitting around or be willing to resolve encounters whose total CR would yield that value in treasure. Of course, a codicle that states that no wish can function when magically influenced or compelled would handle the charm/compel issue, too.
Thus, looking at the Pathfinder treasure per encounter table, it would take 2-3 CR 18-20 encounters to 'pay off' the cost of the stat boosting book wish. It was always implicit in the description that you must bargain for the wish. This would simply codify the standard terms that would need to be used.
Thoughts?
|
|
"A creature using magical means to compel a creature with the wish spell-like ability to use it on their behalf are immediately afflicted with a mark of justice; in any event, the wishhas no effect."
To add to this:
"Those who bargain for a wish through ordinary Diplomacy must accept a geas from the wish-granting creature as payment for their service. Until such time as the geas is completed, the character cannot benefit from any wish spell-like ability from any creature. The nature of wishes is such that a wish cannot be granted while an obligation to another wish-granting creature remains. This does not prevent a character from casting wish himself or use a ring of wishes or similar magic item."
I really like the geas/mark of justice solution. I do believe that these type of "problems" (ie wish chaining) are ridiculous picking of nits, however, this solution allows a very close approximation of the spirit of the RAW. You ARE supposed to bargain, and the DM determines what bargains are acceptable. A Geas from a Solar would likely be stomachable for a good character. A Geas from an Efreet or Balor - not so much.
One other option that could neatly handle the wish issue is to require services of commensurate value to the wish granted. In other words, if you want a +5 stat boost wish, you better have 125k sitting around or be willing to resolve encounters whose total CR would yield that value in treasure. Of course, a codicle that states that no wish can function when magically influenced or compelled would handle the charm/compel issue, too.
Thus, looking at the Pathfinder treasure per encounter table, it would take 2-3 CR 18-20 encounters to 'pay off' the cost of the stat boosting book wish. It was always implicit in the description that you must bargain for the wish. This would simply codify the standard terms that would need to be used.
Thoughts?
I think something like that might be acceptable.
No, gate isn't broken because you can summon a monster to defeat for XP. Gate is broken because, well...
The second effect of the gate spell is to call an extraplanar creature to your aid (a calling effect). By naming a particular being or kind of being as you cast the spell, you cause the gate to open in the immediate vicinity of the desired creature and pull the subject through, willing or unwilling. Deities and unique beings are under no compulsion to come through the gate, although they may choose to do so of their own accord. This use of the spell creates a gate that remains open just long enough to transport the called creatures. This use of the spell has an XP cost (see below).
If you choose to call a kind of creature instead of a known individual you may call either a single creature (of any HD) or several creatures. You can call and control several creatures as long as their HD total does not exceed your caster level. In the case of a single creature, you can control it if its HD do not exceed twice your caster level. A single creature with more HD than twice 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.
A controlled creature can be commanded to perform a service for you. Such services fall into two categories: immediate tasks and contractual service. Fighting for you in a single battle or taking any other actions that can be accomplished within 1 round per caster level counts as an immediate task; you need not make any agreement or pay any reward for the creature’s help. The creature departs at the end of the spell.
Without resorting to anything that one could argue on the basis of rules (i.e., celestial great gold wyrm or epic monsters), a wizard can call a solar to fight for him. They are CR 23 and cast as 20th-level clerics. They also get a host of SLAs, plus slaying arrows, plus melee prowess.
Seeing the problems yet?
|
|
No, gate isn't broken because you can summon a monster to defeat for XP. Gate is broken because, well...
Without resorting to anything that one could argue on the basis of rules (i.e., celestial great gold wyrm or epic monsters), a wizard can call a solar to fight for him. They are CR 23 and cast as 20th-level clerics....The second effect of the gate spell is to call an extraplanar creature to your aid (a calling effect). By naming a particular being or kind of being as you cast the spell, you cause the gate to open in the immediate vicinity of the desired creature and pull the subject through, willing or unwilling. Deities and unique beings are under no compulsion to come through the gate, although they may choose to do so of their own accord. This use of the spell creates a gate that remains open just long enough to transport the called creatures. This use of the spell has an XP cost (see below).
If you choose to call a kind of creature instead of a known individual you may call either a single creature (of any HD) or several creatures. You can call and control several creatures as long as their HD total does not exceed your caster level. In the case of a single creature, you can control it if its HD do not exceed twice your caster level. A single creature with more HD than twice 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.
A controlled creature can be commanded to perform a service for you. Such services fall into two categories: immediate tasks and contractual service. Fighting for you in a single battle or taking any other actions that can be accomplished within 1 round per caster level counts as an immediate task; you need not make any agreement or pay any reward for the creature’s help. The creature departs at the end of the spell.
In the specific instance of Gate, do you think that limiting the HD to CL (instead of 2*CL) would help at all?
|
|
Without resorting to anything that one could argue on the basis of rules (i.e., celestial great gold wyrm or epic monsters), a wizard can call a solar to fight for him. They are CR 23 and cast as 20th-level clerics....
I guess it might depend on whether a Solar is considered a unique creature or not.
In the case of powerful angels, I think I could see arguing that they are each unique.
On the other hand, I think getting rid of the 2*CL bit might fix it pretty quick.
|
|
Without resorting to anything that one could argue on the basis of rules (i.e., celestial great gold wyrm or epic monsters), a wizard can call a solar to fight for him. They are CR 23 and cast as 20th-level clerics....I guess it might depend on whether a Solar is considered a unique creature or not.
In the case of powerful angels, I think I could see arguing that they are each unique.
On the other hand, I think getting rid of the 2*CL bit might fix it pretty quick.
If you choose to call a kind of creature instead of a known individual you may call either a single creature (of any HD) or several creatures. You can call and control several creatures as long as their HD total does not exceed your caster level. In the case of a single creature, you can control it if its HD do not exceed your caster level. A single 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.
maybe?
Wicht: BS. That's like saying "every human is a special unique snowflake." You're trying to sodomize the rules to fix the spell.
Jason: That wouldn't stop a wizard from summoning a balor to fight for him.
Well you convinced me.
Good job. Nothing special about your average archangel. Common as mud they are.
Solars are a type of angel. They are not unique. It'd be like saying that a scrag was a unique troll because of whatever logic you're using.
Let's look at the spell description, shall we?
By naming a particular being or kind of being as you cast the spell, you cause the gate to open in the immediate vicinity of the desired creature and pull the subject through, willing or unwilling. Deities and unique beings are under no compulsion to come through the gate, although they may choose to do so of their own accord. This use of the spell creates a gate that remains open just long enough to transport the called creatures. This use of the spell has an XP cost (see below).
If you choose to call a kind of creature instead of a known individual you may call either a single creature (of any HD) or several creatures. You can call and control several creatures as long as their HD total does not exceed your caster level. In the case of a single creature, you can control it if its HD do not exceed twice your caster level. A single creature with more HD than twice 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.
Therefore, a "particular being" is a unique individual, such as "Psychic_Robot." However, a kind of creature is not subject to the "unique individual" rules.
Well you convinced me.
Good job. Nothing special about your average archangel. Common as mud they are.
Wicht, there is a distinction in the rules between what is and isn't a unique creature. "Demogorgon" is a unique creature. "The Tarrasque" is a unique creature.
"A Solar" isn't a unique creature. You can even have multiple Solars in an encounter.You are attempting to erase that distinction just to fix a spell--or rather, to refuse to admit that a spell needs fixing. Those archangels are as "special" as you like, but they all use the Solar stat block, which represents a generic archangel thingy. By contrast, there is no "generic tarrasque" stat block--there's just THE tarrasque. As a result, if you Gate in a Solar, you can control it. If you Gate in Demogorgon, you can't control it (and you're a suicidal moron who deserves what he's going to get).
Furthermore, I think you're aware of this. You're just ignoring it in an attempt to handwave away a problem in the rules through semantics. Why? Who does this benefit? Is the game that requires you to twist together a Frankensteinian monstrosity of game terms and English words to make a rule work really better than one that just has a working rule in the first place?
|
|
I believe, though I admittedly could be mistaken, that my proffered solution was to change the CL*2 to CL.
My comment on Solars, I thought, had more do to with identifying what was meant by a unique individual. I suspect the meaning might change from cosmology to cosmology. I think if I encountered a DM who said that all Solars in his world were unique individuals I would not care to argue. But then I again, I might be mistaken and yall are right that I'm really just trying to distort the game, twist the rules and mangle the language.
I believe, though I admittedly could be mistaken, that my proffered solution was to change the CL*2 to CL.
My comment on Solars, I thought, had more do to with identifying what was meant by a unique individual. I suspect the meaning might change from cosmology to cosmology. I think if I encountered a DM who said that all Solars in his world were unique individuals I would not care to argue. But then I again, I might be mistaken and yall are right that I'm really just trying to distort the game, twist the rules and mangle the language.
No, the meaning doesn't change from cosmology to cosmology, it's a bit of rules. The word is meant to allow creatures which exist as multiples (like Solars and Balors) to be Gated in, but not creatures that there is only one of (like the Tarrasque or Demogorgon). If a DM wants to house rule that there is only one Solar in his campaign, or that there are a handful but every Solar is unique (and has its own stat block), fine, whatever, but that has no more bearing on the actual rules than a DM deciding that all wizards get 500 temporary HP each day.
Changing the CL*2 to CL limits the abuse, but also goes against the point of the spell and doesn't prevent the abuse (LOL BALOR).
I believe, though I admittedly could be mistaken, that my proffered solution was to change the CL*2 to CL.
I'm not exactly sure that solves the problem. I think that just reduces the number of times it breaks, but doesn't change the fact that it does break.
|
|
I believe, though I admittedly could be mistaken, that my proffered solution was to change the CL*2 to CL.I'm not exactly sure that solves the problem. I think that just reduces the number of times it breaks, but doesn't change the fact that it does break.
Stating that it breaks is begging the question.
What do you mean here by 'breaking.'
Too powerful for PCs?
The thing is, if the PCs can do it, so can the other guys half the time. Whats good for the goose and all that.
A real life example: You're at a car lot and Mr. Eagle's Splendor himself convinces you that it's really in your best interest to sign a loan and buy a particular car. Later that day or lying in bed in the wee hours, you regret spending more than you meant to and think, "That manipulative jerk! I can't believe he played me like that!" He's hardly going to make it onto your Christmas card list.
Your example is an example of bluff, no diplomacy. Diplomacy doesn't involve taking advantage of people, it involves actually being nice/friendly/persuasive.
I disagree. Bluff is when you're trying to make someone believe something that's not true. For instance, if you point out to Mr. Eagle's Splendor that the trunk release lever inside the car doesn't work and he tells you that it's not broken, it's actually a new security feature, he would be Bluffing. If, however, he's just telling you that this is a very nice car and you'd like it -- and it is, in fact, a very nice car you like, you just didn't want to spend that much -- it's his Diplomacy that convinces you to sign the papers. He's not lying.
|
|
Furthermore, I think you're aware of this. You're just ignoring it in an attempt to handwave away a problem in the rules through semantics. Why? Who does this benefit? Is the game that requires you to twist together a Frankensteinian monstrosity of game terms and English words to make a rule work really better than one that just has a working rule in the first place?
This is needlessly aggressive. he proffered a possible solution. Why the aggression? Who does it benefit? Are you really making the discussion better by jumping all over someone for making a "frankenstein monstrosity" of the game when he suggested a legitimate solution. His suggestion was to change the gate spell to limit calling creatures of HD <= your level. Discuss the merits (or lack of merits).
And Psychich_Robot - enough with your ridiculous choices of language. Sodomize the rules?Really? You have no credibility at this point to me. It is blantantly obvious that you only come over here so you can troll and then crow about how great you are over in the den. Even when people try to engage you in reasoned discussion you act like an ass. What do you want then, slavish agreement? Debate isn't allowed? Grow up already and stop acting like a juvenile-antisocial twit.
If you say so, then I'm sure you are right.
Why would you even bother to post what amounts to "I disagree but I'm going to be really condescendingly sarcastic about it rather than try and back up my point?"
The line about unique creatures assumes the rest of the D&D 3.5 ruleset. It was intended to allow a certain thing, but not allow a certain other thing. If you're going to mess with that, you're messing with the rules.
And Psychich_Robot - enough with your ridiculous choices of language. Sodomize the rules?Really? You have no credibility at this point to me. It is blantantly obvious that you only come over here so you can troll and then crow about how great you are over in the den. Even when people try to engage you in reasoned discussion you act like an ass. What do you want then, slavish agreement? Debate isn't allowed? Grow up already and stop acting like a juvenile-antisocial twit.
Epic.
Your hypocrisy aside, I'd like to state that the threads that I post on the Den are merely a bonus, sort of like getting a free dessert at a restaurant. I truly do wish Pathfinder to be the best that it can be (for a class-based system). In fact, my friend is starting a Pathfinder game tomorrow--so you might say I have a vested interest in Pathfinder's development.
This is needlessly aggressive. he proffered a possible solution. Why the aggression? Who does it benefit? Are you really making the discussion better by jumping all over someone for making a "frankenstein monstrosity" of the game when he suggested a legitimate solution. His suggestion was to change the gate spell to limit calling creatures of HD <= your level. Discuss the merits (or lack of merits).
I have.
And the agression is a kneejerk response, because I'm really tired of people who try and twist the language of the rules to make them OK.
|
|
And Psychich_Robot - enough with your ridiculous choices of language. Sodomize the rules?Really? You have no credibility at this point to me. It is blantantly obvious that you only come over here so you can troll and then crow about how great you are over in the den. Even when people try to engage you in reasoned discussion you act like an ass. What do you want then, slavish agreement? Debate isn't allowed? Grow up already and stop acting like a juvenile-antisocial twit.Epic.
I aim to please. Btw, if you feel like returning the favor, how about another self-imposed exile for yourself. please?
School is out.
Why is it OK for you to imply that all or some of the posters are schoolchildren (and therefore juvenile &etc), but not okay for P_R to imply to that all or some of the posters are dumb?
If you guys want to get the whole civility thing going on here, you'll have to start being civil yourselves. Backhanded sniping is no more civil than saying "you're an idiot" to someone.
|
|
If you say so, then I'm sure you are right.Why would you even bother to post what amounts to "I disagree but I'm going to be really condescendingly sarcastic about it rather than try and back up my point?"
LOL :)
The proper thing to do when someone says they are sure you are right is to say, "thank you," and smile.