|
Some of the other are. I find the "you will summon the extra powerful version of the efreti as a standard event" as credible a scenery as "you are walking around the market and try to pickpocket a nondescript guy for some copper and discover he is a 20° level wizard that will instantly disintegrate you."
Actually if the commoners in your world have access to 3 wishes every day for their entire life, I would not be terribly surprised if attempting to mug them resulted in you being instantly disintegrated.
If you rule that efreeti don't suffer from wish perversion, sure.
But on the other hand there will be only 1 efreeti in all the multiuniverse, the first that got right the wish to be master of all the multiuniverse (after all wish has unlimited power and he don't suffer from wish perversion, right?). To be safe he will have erased all the other efreeti from existence.
If not, there is a constant war between efreeti, wishing each other into oblivion and as ruler of all and the area where they live is the equivalent of a continual nuclear war.
What do you think will be the lifespan of the ruler of a race with unlimited wish spawning? of an unloved neighbour? or someone that is even slightly disliked?
The only thing you have convinced me is that allowing a genie to spawn wishes for a genie, even indirectly, will only cause trouble.
The there is the little problem of the interpretation of:
- grant up to 3 wishes (to nongenies only)
When he grant the wishes? first he hear it and then use its power to grant the wish?
Or he grant the wish and then the non-genie declare it and it is fulfilled, with the eventual perversion?
The second version make the use of wish servants very dangerous.
|
The Bestiary entries are designed for Low. As a rule of thumb, the CR should be adjust downward by 1 for each step above Low your campaign runs. An efreet is CR8 in a Low campaign, it would be CR4 in an Epic campaign.
Sorry, my mistake, the Bestiary entries are designed for Standard. An efreet would be CR 6 in an Epic campaign, 7 in High, 8 in Standard and 9 in Low. My math was off.
|
|
Can I get the same chance with my summoning spells, please?You talk as if thinking outside the box is a bad thing. I was under the impression that roleplaying was supposed to encourage imagination and thinking outside the box? Was I wrong? It might be a bit more difficult to advance a summoned creature by RAW, since they are limited to specific lists of creatures that are very close in CR. So it would require more work on the part of the DM, because he'd not only have to recalculate its HD, but also its CR to make sure it doesn't move it to a higher list. But there is enough sway between CRs on the same lists that at least some minimal advancement could be done without forcing the creature to occupy a higher level list.Tell me Nightwish... Have you ever considered that I have stated multiple times that for this thing to remain even somewhat balanced, modifications need to be made?
Advancing your Efreet is one such modification. Just like removing their Wish ability, or making them call immune.
I find it funny that your solution is exactly the same: Modifying the rules.
Except for possibly removing the wish ability, none of the things you mentioned are modifying the rules. They are using the RAW to modify the creature. There is a difference.
|
|
But on the other hand there will be only 1 efreeti in all the multiuniverse, the first that got right the wish to be master of all the multiuniverse (after all wish has unlimited power and he don't suffer from wish perversion, right?). To be safe he will have erased all the other efreeti from existence.
Is all this hyperbole and strawman bashing of yours eventually going to lead to a salient point, or are you just trying to be irritating?
The there is the little problem of the interpretation of:
- grant up to 3 wishes (to nongenies only)When he grant the wishes? first he hear it and then use its power to grant the wish?
Yes, that is how it works. And with a few very specific exceptions, he is free to grant or deny the wish as he desires. He is also free to interpret the wishes as he sees fit. That is why it is generally viewed as foolhardy to try to bargain with an efreeti for wishes.
Or he grant the wish and then the non-genie declare it and it is fulfilled, with the eventual perversion?
This would be a very stupid genie. This would be a genie that is stupid on a level that no other creature in the multiverse has ever attained. If you know where such a genie can be found, you let me know, because he's a golden goose!
|
|
Except that advanced efreet with a billion levels of sorcerer don't answer the average planar binding. ESPECIALLY not those that go past the HD limit.
Did you and Diego go to the same school? Where are you two getting all this rediculous hyperbole? Nobody said anything about massive levels of sorceror. Nobody said anything about advancing creatures beyond the limits of what planar bindings can call. The two of you are just making that crap up as you go.
Assuming the entire game world levels up to accomodate the players is outright ridiculous, and you can do it only so many times before any player with a desire for a somewhat logical world will shake his head and walk away.
And again, I repeat (for those of you who either don't read well, or don't remember well what you've read) - the comment about encounters being *appropriate* (note the word was 'appropriate,' not 'automatically the same level as the casters,' as your buddy Diego tried to claim) was later clarified when I said that the expected reward should be comensurate with the encounter. If you're fine with getting bubkis for experience or wealth or reknown, then by all means, tackle all the 2nd level groups of orcs that you like. I know you read that clarification, because you commented on it, so I'm not sure why you've forgotten that already.
Simple laws of probability will mean that the average Efreeti answering the average binding will be, indeed, average. Not even going into the fact how horribly pissed off a player will be if his class abilities or spells won't do what they are supposed to do.
There's a difference between allowing a character's abilities and spells to do what they're supposed to do, and allowing a player to abuse and attempt to break the system. And what you were describing was an attempt to break the system.
If you believe that the wizard having a higher charisma due to a higher point buy will do all that much to reduce a creature's CR, you are sorely mistaken.
If you think that having one or two extra points in each stat does not alter the balance between pcs and monsters as they appear in the bestiary, you are sorely mistaken. I'm sure our resident number-crunchers around here will be happy to tell you just how much the odds increase in favor of the pcs when they are pitting Epic point-buy characters against Standard level monsters.
And it is. Thats what I've been saying all along. BECAUSE YOU CAN. Should the DM stop it? Hell yes! But certainly not by throwing any sort of logic out of the window and throwing superadvanced outsiders around that can't even be called with that spell.
There you go with the hyperbole again. The two of you would really do well to try to tackle the things that were actually said instead of just making stuff up out of whole cloth. You're not doing yourselves any favors by erecting strawmen just so you can knock them down.
Assuming the DM plays the wish game with the player he has to decide if he is going to use DM Fiat or stay completely within the rules. If he goes by the rules then he only use what the spells give him. That means no advanced/classed/etc monsters other than stock monsters. Anything else is DM Fiat. That does not make it wrong, but the DM should be upfront about how he handles things that stretch the system to put it mildly.
From what I understand Nightwish has said they will use DM Fiat to handle issues, or at least this one, but the others are thinking she(I am going off of the icon) is trying to say her advanced monsters are allowable by the spells according to RAW.
If access to large numbers of wishes is game breaking for the player, then efreeti who have access to them naturally should likely already be doing everything a player would do with them for power.
A simple DC 10 knowledge religion, plane or arcana would have told you that the Efreeti and the Djinni are very careful with their wish utilisation, they are fearing something...
With a DC15 you've heard of some tale in their religion about entire Clan of Wish abusing Efreeti who had just disapeared without trace... it is said that every wish made is looked upon by someone or something very powerful... The efreeti fear this, it is said to bring the true death...A DC 30 will tell you that, in their most ancient writing Efreeti speak about an entity that they call the "Wish Guardian" (Dehemm in Efreeti language) who punish everyone abusing Wishes...
A DC 35 tell you that even the Gods fear the "Wish Guardian"... It is said he has the "Supreme Wish ability" which can change the entire history, if he wishes someone has not existed then the history rewrit itself has if this guy has never existed, and even the gods are not immune... He can erase entire plane with this... ;)
This does NOT break the rules... :p
Now... Just one little thing : RAW is not enough to play the game... Fluff is sometimes more important than the RAW... In a world where magic exist and where a lot of people use it you have to think about the consequences of having this magic... Or else you have to ask yourself why mister "Random thief lvl 1" don't buy a Charm Person or Sleep wand and go to a "everything for free" rampage in town...
People being people if there's something that can be abused then you have to realise that someone had had this idea before you and that the authority have faced this case before and know how to face it...
How can you protect your secret in a world where scrying exist ? Well I think every General, every Politician will have thought of this (or quickly lost war/election/power) and will protect themself from magical indiscretion...
In a world where assassin can go invisible, teleport themselve etc. every king, count, people of power will have protection against magic...
This is not in the RAW, not even in the Golarion setting... But if you want a coherent world then those things are implied...
There's a lot of things you can abuse, jeweler are, mostly, commoner level 1-3, you can become rich very quickly without the DM remembering you that you're not the first to think of this, if others don't do it it's not because they can't or because they haven't think of it, it's because, in the end, it most always fail... :)
Well, sure if there is no wish perversion, I agree that there might not even be an entire genie society as the first genie would have just gotten absolute power and eradicated all other genies.
Every Genies is sure that some of the name in the "Great Book of Wishes Misbehavior" has tried things like that... This book, which contain a list of name that grow longer every minute, is the only thing that stay of someone who has received the History Erase Wish from Dehemm the Wish Guardian... :)
But I was more stating that if wish perversion existed then genies would likely treat wish using like we treat scientific advancement. IE experimentation. So through many generations of cooperative genie effort they would have expanded their knowledge of what wishes can safely grant. Which would likely be a reason genies don't obliterate each other(they need each other).
Once again they can't do this... Since the real abusers do not see their wishes twisted but are erased from history... No one can profit from their experience, only another unknown name appears in the Great Book... ;)
Yeah, Genies are very cautious with wishes... So should the others...
I don't mind that as a DM's solution as well.
My previous premise was this:
If anyone was going to be abusing free wishes, the ones who would do it first would be those with direct access to it(namely genies).
Thus I would think it over before I personally kidnapped a CR 8 genie because I am very likely to get a 12 HD CR 25 creature come out of the portal.
Yeah you're right, but then Genies wouls surely rules the entire multiverse ;)
PS : To the OP, don't try to formulate complicated things with lots of circumvolution, try the simplest, most direct way to formulate your wish... After all, if your DM do not want you to do something he can always find a way to do what he wants with a spell like wish... ;)
I want to break it down.
A friend of mine had a character with a magic rubber ball.
It was a gift of a god. It granted protection from evil.
If it's not a minor artifact, any item that grants protection from evil will also block benificial mental influences such as the Bard Song.
|
|
Assuming the DM plays the wish game with the player he has to decide if he is going to use DM Fiat or stay completely within the rules. If he goes by the rules then he only use what the spells give him. That means no advanced/classed/etc monsters other than stock monsters.
Where is this stated anywhere in the rules? It doesn't say anything like that in the spell descriptions for planar binding or any of the summoning spells. It doesn't say that in the Magic section under Conjuration (Calling) or Conjuration (Summoning). Advanced/classed/etc monsters may not be specifically outlined in those sections, but neither are they disallowed by any of the language in those sections. Stock monsters are standard practice, yes, because they make things much easier for both the DM and the player in average situations. Calling a creature that grants wishes is anything but an average situation. The language of Planar Binding (not including the Greater version) allows the caster to call a 12 HD creature. A standard efreeti is 10HD. There is nothing in RAW that prevents a DM from adding 2 Hit Die, or 2 class levels to advance that creature to 12HD. It doesn't require DM fiat, it is allowable within the rules as written ... unless someone can point out to me where it specifically states that summoned and/or called creatures must only ever be the standard stock version.
|
|
Also don't forget that efreet carry standard treasure. That's not just random stuff they drop and never use. That's stuff they will use to their best ability. So even without advancing the creature or giving it class levels, chances are its offensive and/or defensive abilities are going to be more than just what is listed in the bestiary entry, depending on what treasure the DM chooses to give the creature.
Well, that was an interesting read.
I think it says a lot about the mentality and approach of certain players than about the wording of the rules.
I agree with Darkheyr in that using the exact wording of the rules it would be possible for a powerful scheming wizard to summon such a creature bind it, receive the wishes, and destroy it. All with a reduced chance of being detected or located.
However.... The rules are a guideline and when the rules are being openly abused loopholes need to be closed to keep the game as fun for everyone, the wizard, the other players, and the DM. In the same way as we wouldn't allow a continuous magical item of mage armour for 2000, we wouldn't allow a level 6 spell to allow 3 level 9 spells while circumventing the 25,000gp diamond [75k for all three].
But fun to read. And there are definitely rules loopholes in all of this to exploit and counter exploit. All of the Pro arguments exploit RAW but ignore the core Rule 0, all of the counter arguments argue DM rule 0 and ignore RAW.
Shrug. Have fun guys.
My bold.
There are some, not all, Efretti that have found ways to survive killer summoners.An Efretti could offer the caster a button, that would grant one wish a day, but would spell dire consequences for one random creature, not the caster or an Efretti. If the Efretti dies, the button becomes inert. If the caster dies, the button returns to the Efretti. Also inherent in the button, the Efretti cannot be summoned while the button is out there. That's just one scenario.
|
|
An Efretti could offer the caster a button, that would grant one wish a day, but would spell dire consequences for one random creature, not the caster or an Efretti. If the Efretti dies, the button becomes inert. If the caster dies, the button returns to the Efretti. Also inherent in the button, the Efretti cannot be summoned while the button is out there. That's just one scenario.
Ah, "The Box" scenario!
|
|
Looking at the Golarion-specific way of doing this stuff, as covered in detail in the Legacy of Fire books...
Genies are proud of their races' ability to grant wishes, so they're not adverse to doing so.
Genies are the masters of wishcraft, with limitless experiences in forming the things - they know more about wishing and wishcraft than your character does. Period. Call it a racial ability...
Genies know full-well that wishing is 'tweaking' the very fabric of reality - little tweaks are much safer than big tweaks, and little, limited, wishes are much more likely to be granted than infinite, open-ended wishes.
Abusing wishcraft via either over-the-top super-powerful wishes, or chain-wishing (or both) damages reality (there are rules in the stated books to deal with this) - genies thus have both strong traditional and cultural reasons, and strong common sense reasons, not to go along with wish abuse.
Genies get to decide exactly how wishes are fulfiled when they grant them. Again, less changes to reality are better. Wishing for a magic item or treasure is much more likely to get an item or gold transported from someone else's keeping to you, rather than an act of creation ex nihlio.
Genies tend to pervert the wishes of those who try to abuse the system, who try to be a 'smartass' with wording, and similar such attempts at what is (essentially) game-breaking stuff.
Genies know that they're a far superior race to your PC, and expect to be treated with the proper respect. Not treating them with the proper respect, even if you do get your wishes, is going to lead to 'jackass genie' syndrome and all your wishes twisted.
'Bullying' a genie is highly unlikely to work - at some point you're going to want to make a wish, and the genie can pervert it easily enough to screw you over. Don't piss off your genie...
Genies are creatures of culture and tradition - there's a certain way they expect things to be done. Trying to bypass this will get you noticed by geniekind as a whole... and you'll be in trouble.
Skilled wishcrafters, like genies, can sense the presence of wish magic and can notice the results - essentially, genies have a higher awareness of the fabric of the universe than your character does. So all the 'protection from detection' spells in the world won't help you if you've actually used any of those chained wishes on yourself - they know where you are, know what your wishes have done, and aren't happy about it...
Basically, read the Legacy of Fire AP - it's really good, and does provide scads of information on how genies and wishcraft work in the setting.
Assuming the DM plays the wish game with the player he has to decide if he is going to use DM Fiat or stay completely within the rules. If he goes by the rules then he only use what the spells give him. That means no advanced/classed/etc monsters other than stock monsters.Where is this stated anywhere in the rules? It doesn't say anything like that in the spell descriptions for planar binding or any of the summoning spells. It doesn't say that in the Magic section under Conjuration (Calling) or Conjuration (Summoning). Advanced/classed/etc monsters may not be specifically outlined in those sections, but neither are they disallowed by any of the language in those sections. Stock monsters are standard practice, yes, because they make things much easier for both the DM and the player in average situations. Calling a creature that grants wishes is anything but an average situation. The language of Planar Binding (not including the Greater version) allows the caster to call a 12 HD creature. A standard efreeti is 10HD. There is nothing in RAW that prevents a DM from adding 2 Hit Die, or 2 class levels to advance that creature to 12HD. It doesn't require DM fiat, it is allowable within the rules as written ... unless someone can point out to me where it specifically states that summoned and/or called creatures must only ever be the standard stock version.
The spells always assume the stock monsters, even thought it only references HD. The reason is to stop players from summoning a low HD outsider, and then use the other HD within the limits of planer ally/binding to give it class levels. I would rather bind an imp with class levels than a horned devil as an example. Either it is legal by RAW or it is not. If it is legal then I need to be a player in your game. I seriously doubt that you would allow that to happen though.
What they should have done was limited those spells by CR, but that is another thread for another day.The DM can do anything he wants. The RAW can't stop that. A lot of things are not spelled out directly. If you want to play the RAW game, and ignore RAI then the dead condition never states that players can't still take actions. There is more silliness in the rules that you may or may not be aware of if you want to say "it is not spelled out".
Do you really believe RAI that the intent is to add class levels per my imp example?
It totally breaks the rules because Wish had limits as a spell, and thus wouldn't be able to kill God's unless when I get level 9 spell wish I can kill gods. This is utter BS to me as a player, I am glad I don't play in these types of games.If access to large numbers of wishes is game breaking for the player, then efreeti who have access to them naturally should likely already be doing everything a player would do with them for power.A simple DC 10 knowledge religion, plane or arcana would have told you that the Efreeti and the Djinni are very careful with their wish utilisation, they are fearing something...
With a DC15 you've heard of some tale in their religion about entire Clan of Wish abusing Efreeti who had just disapeared without trace... it is said that every wish made is looked upon by someone or something very powerful... The efreeti fear this, it is said to bring the true death...
A DC 30 will tell you that, in their most ancient writing Efreeti speak about an entity that they call the "Wish Guardian" (Dehemm in Efreeti language) who punish everyone abusing Wishes...
A DC 35 tell you that even the Gods fear the "Wish Guardian"... It is said he has the "Supreme Wish ability" which can change the entire history, if he wishes someone has not existed then the history rewrit itself has if this guy has never existed, and even the gods are not immune... He can erase entire plane with this... ;)This does NOT break the rules... :p
Inevitables are watching for wish abuse.
Depending on the wish, that's the thing that comes after you or someone not so well protected.|
|
Well I hope whoever runs there games like that (making creatures pulled with binding spells tougher so it's "fair") lets the players know. Because thats changing the game to screw over the players if they don't know up front, and that generally would lead to me finding another game.
It's rather irritating when you agree to play a game, and then people just decide for themselves that the rules of the game are not done "properly", and adjust the game as they see fit. If you don't want any exploits then lets all grab a game of risk or monopoly or something, or make your own game. But guess what, people don't want to play those games with those type of people either, and especially don't want to play in their custom built games (because the rules will constantly change to screw over the players).
As I said before, this isn't something I do standard in my games. It is something I hold in reserve if the players are abusing the system or trying to break the game. As a DM, I don't need to spell out for my players that I will pull out tricks sometimes to keep the game in balance if I feel it is getting out of balance. I don't need to spell that out, because it's expected ... of every DM. I only brought it up in this thread because the scenario that Darkheyr was proposing was intended to do exactly that - break the game.
As a DM, I don't need to spell out for my players that I will pull out tricks sometimes to keep the game in balance if I feel it is getting out of balance.Well I hope whoever runs there games like that (making creatures pulled with binding spells tougher so it's "fair") lets the players know. Because thats changing the game to screw over the players if they don't know up front, and that generally would lead to me finding another game.
It's rather irritating when you agree to play a game, and then people just decide for themselves that the rules of the game are not done "properly", and adjust the game as they see fit. If you don't want any exploits then lets all grab a game of risk or monopoly or something, or make your own game. But guess what, people don't want to play those games with those type of people either, and especially don't want to play in their custom built games (because the rules will constantly change to screw over the players).
I would just say no and explain why.
I will admit I am interpreting "tricks" as underhanded when you may just mean it in a less adversarial way, such as changing a monster's feats to make him more viable in combat.|
|
I would just say no and explain why.
I will admit I am interpreting "tricks" as underhanded when you may just mean it in a less adversarial way, such as changing a monster's feats to make him more viable in combat.
I mean "tricks" in the sense that I may, in some instances, use non-standard tactics (but which aren't actually contrary to RAW). Swapping feats is one example. Giving a creature a couple class levels to make it more appropriate to the encounter is another. Simply applying the CR system flat out is a poor measure of how challenging an encounter is for a party. Even cleverly using skills to make things appear different than they are (see below). Over time, you develop a feel for what the party needs to keep them on their toes. Too challenging, and the party feels the DM is against them. Too easy, and the party loses interest or gets dangerously cocky. One of the devs once weighed in on how long a good combat should take (I think it was James Jacobs, but I don't recall for certain), and he said 4-6 rounds was just about right. If the party is consistently winning in 3 rounds or less, the encounters aren't challenging enough. If they are consistently lasting more than 6 rounds, they're too tough. That's not to say that every encounter should match the "appropriate" challenge, because that wouldn't be realistic. But they should even out. And for an overpowered party, there is the choice of either throwing them up against creatures that are typically more powerful, or throwing them up against creatures that are typically less powerful but have advancements and class levels. I find the latter far more interesting, because it keeps the party guessing and doesn't let them get to overconfident. The other day, I threw them up against a witch (small "w," not the Witch class) that hit them for two rounds with Bestow Curse from a distance. I had them shaking in their boots thinking she was this super high-level caster with enough spell levels to use Reach Spell on Bestow Curse, and really she was just using Bluff and Disguise to hide the fact that she was using a metamagic rod.
I am in a campaign where we are about to go on a very difficult mission and have a few days of down time. I am currently playing a 16th level wizard (for the sake of ease assume I have access to all wizard spells). As our situation is dire and my GM likes to through very difficult fights at us I am considering using planar binding to get two efreeti to serve me. Assuming I succeed and that the two have to grant me all of their wishes for two days (12 wishes in total) I was hoping for some advice on how to request two things.
The first is I wish to raise the intelligence of my wizard. The second I would like to gain some information (safely, and quickly) about the demi-plane we are about to attack.
For the first the best I have come up with so far is 'I wish to be significantly more intelligent than I am currently, with no harmful or unwanted changes to my mind or person'
For the second I have no idea. All of my scrying spells have failed, and this has me worried about going in blindly.
So any advice would be appreciated. Also feel free to rip into my wish just like a good efreeti would.
One more thing, I have considered using touch of idiocy on the efreeti before they grant me my wishes. I have to think dumber efreeti would be less effective at distorting my wishes. Thoughts?
Hi OP,
I think the suggestion to ask your GM how they will interpret the rules is the thing to do, assuming that your character has enough of the appropriate knowledge skill to understand wish-craft, otherwise your character is basically shooting in the dark on this.
With regards to debuffing your genies pre-wishing, I think it is a reasonable interpretation of RAW to say that such blatant aggression against the genie will only increase its desire to twist your wishes. In fact, I would probably assume that anything you bind is probably going to be none to happy about being called to the material plane by some puny mortal with delusions of grandeur.
You have mentioned in subsequent posts that your character is always very careful, doesn't like to go in blind and what not. Given this, I can only interpret the fact that all your divinations are failing as a method for the DM to push you a bit out of your comfort zone. This isn't necessarily a bad thing as it can create a memorable experience or challenge you as a player to develop tactics that are more than scry and prepare for what's coming. If this is the case, then my guess is that simply second-hand scrying through a summoned intermediary (no matter the mechanical method) is unlikely to be any more successful.
To address the ongoing argument on this forum re: the use of wishes through planar binding.
Using a 6th level spell to access a 9th level spell, multiple times per casting at a significant cash discount without any repercussions seems like an obvious no-go to me both from a game design and a GM's perspective. nuf said
I mean "tricks" in the sense that I may, in some instances, use non-standard tactics (but which aren't actually contrary to RAW). Swapping feats is one example. Giving a creature a couple class levels to make it more appropriate to the encounter is another. Simply applying the CR system flat out is a poor measure of how challenging an encounter is for a party. Even cleverly using skills to make things appear different than they are (see below). Over time, you develop a feel for what the party needs to keep them on their toes. Too challenging, and the party feels the DM is against them. Too easy, and the party loses interest or gets dangerously cocky. One of the devs once weighed in on how long a good combat should take (I think it was James Jacobs, but I don't recall for certain), and he said 4-6 rounds was just about right. If the party is consistently winning in 3 rounds or less, the encounters aren't challenging enough. If they are consistently lasting more than 6 rounds, they're too tough. That's not to say that every encounter should match the "appropriate" challenge, because that wouldn't be realistic. But they should even out. And for an overpowered party, there is the choice of either throwing them up against creatures that are typically more powerful, or throwing them up against creatures that are typically less powerful but have advancements and class levels. I find the latter far more interesting, because it keeps the party guessing and doesn't let them get to overconfident. The other day, I threw them up against a witch (small "w," not the Witch class) that hit them for two rounds with Bestow Curse from a distance. I had them shaking in their boots thinking she was this super high-level caster with enough spell levels to use Reach Spell on...I would just say no and explain why.
I will admit I am interpreting "tricks" as underhanded when you may just mean it in a less adversarial way, such as changing a monster's feats to make him more viable in combat.
You never did my answer my imp + caster level question, and whether or not it was legal for a player to do so.
|
|
So what I hear is "If the players don't agree with how I see the rules, I feel free to alter then in a manner to make them not do what I don't want them to do".
Then you're hearing something nobody has said. Honestly, I wish people would pay attention to what is being said, and stop trying to put words in other peoples' mouths. It would make discourse far more honest!
Not a single thing I have suggested qualifies as "changing the rules." They may be non-standard interpretations of the rules (in this particular thread, offering an extreme case to counter an extreme scenario, in case that point escaped you), but players are free to do the same. They do in every game, in everyone's game. If five people read the same spell, they're going to read it five different ways. You can argue all day long about RAI, but lacking the devs' direct input, you're arguing a guessing game from all sides involved, and RAI isn't gospel, even when it is known, in a game that encourages new ideas (as D&D, and everything built upon it, has from day one). Any interpretation of the rules that is reasonable (subjective, of course) and not explicitly contrary to the RAW is a valid interpretation, and it is ultimately up to the GM to decide which valid interpretation is going to hold sway at his or her table. It's not always possible to lay those out in advance, because you don't know in advance what differences people are going to have in a given situation. But accusing someone of changing the rules just because their subjective interpretation differs from your subjective interpretation is pretty weak.
Hey your welcome to do whatever you want in your game. I was just simply stating if it wasn't laid out in a "custom rules sheet" or "house rules sheet" before hand that certain spells/ablities are completely open to you changing them on a whim I would walk out when that happened.
I do lay out most of my house rules and custom rules in advance. But there's no way to lay them all out in advance, because they change as new ideas are introduced and new disagreements come to the fore. It takes a pretty petulant and childish player to walk out the first time a rule doesn't agree with him.
|
|
You never did my answer my imp + caster level question, and whether or not it was legal for a player to do so.
Legal, yes. Likely, probably not, unless you interpret planar binding as being able to specify a class type as well as a creature type. Planar Binding states that you have to specify the type of creature you're calling, but anything more specific than that, you'll need to know its name. The caster of the spell can say, "I want to call an imp," but he can't say, "I want to call an imp sorceror," unless the DM agrees that the spell allows for that much specificity (which I don't). On the other hand, if you know there is an imp named Jagglefart who is also a 5th level sorceror, then yes, you can call Jagglefart through your Planar Binding spell. Otherwise it is totally random on the player's end. The DM, however, can pick or choose whatever imp he wants to answer the calling, within the HD limits of the spell, so the DM could choose to send Jagglefart whether the player asked for him or not. It would all boil down to how likely it is for imps to take class levels in your game world. If only 5% of imps ever take class levels, and your DM doesn't want to go with the boring stock imp, then he could just roll a d%, and give it a 5% chance of calling forth a leveled imp.
A simple DC 10 knowledge religion, plane or arcana would have told you that the Efreeti and the Djinni are very careful with their wish utilisation, they are fearing something...
With a DC15 you've heard of some tale in their religion about entire Clan of Wish abusing Efreeti who had just disapeared without trace... it is said that every wish made is looked upon by someone or something very powerful... The efreeti fear this, it is said to bring the true death...
A DC 30 will tell you that, in their most ancient writing Efreeti speak about an entity that they call the "Wish Guardian" (Dehemm in Efreeti language) who punish everyone abusing Wishes...
A DC 35 tell you that even the Gods fear the "Wish Guardian"... It is said he has the "Supreme Wish ability" which can change the entire history, if he wishes someone has not existed then the history rewrit itself has if this guy has never existed, and even the gods are not immune... He can erase entire plane with this... ;)
I was kinda hoping that he'd be called the Wishmaster.
1. GM Fiat removes the fun
2. We play this game to have fun
3. So don't use GM Fiat unless you have to, and there isn't another option to fix the issue (like upping the power of the BBEG).
The most important rule implies otherwise. Remember GM Fiat runs both ways. Sometimes you just need to make that battleaxe wielding orc's crits magically disappear so the party doesn't get TPK'd by bad dice. Sometimes you need to go "Your teleport fails." "Why?" "Plot has occurred and now you need to find out why."
What is the point of a character existing if they constantly find the 1% of the population more powerful than them, but never have much happen with the 99% of the population lower powered than them?
Isn't that like how 99% of plots go? You need to go out and kill the BBEG who is out to do something bad and you need to stop him.
You never did my answer my imp + caster level question, and whether or not it was legal for a player to do so.Legal, yes. Likely, probably not, unless you interpret planar binding as being able to specify a class type as well as a creature type. Planar Binding states that you have to specify the type of creature you're calling, but anything more specific than that, you'll need to know its name. The caster of the spell can say, "I want to call an imp," but he can't say, "I want to call an imp sorceror," unless the DM agrees that the spell allows for that much specificity (which I don't). On the other hand, if you know there is an imp named Jagglefart who is also a 5th level sorceror, then yes, you can call Jagglefart through your Planar Binding spell. Otherwise it is totally random on the player's end. The DM, however, can pick or choose whatever imp he wants to answer the calling, within the HD limits of the spell, so the DM could choose to send Jagglefart whether the player asked for him or not. It would all boil down to how likely it is for imps to take class levels in your game world. If only 5% of imps ever take class levels, and your DM doesn't want to go with the boring stock imp, then he could just roll a d%, and give it a 5% chance of calling forth a leveled imp.
The book does not say I need the DM's permission. Let's say I go with I decide to call an imp with class levels to up my chances instead of going with a sorcerer. The book just has a HD limit by your interpretation. I could go for the advanced template also since that does not even advance HD. The giant template does not advance HD either.
Now of course I don't expect a classed giant advanced imp, but my point is that by saying you don't think the game intends for the spell to apply to stock monsters only you open up a lot of weird things that don't need to be opened up.Everyone(90%+) is aware that racial HD and class HD are not equal so nobody would call a non-classed monster if that were the intention to also allow classed monsters to be called, and it would be common knowledge among the RPG community that calling classed monsters is the optimal thing to do.
Hey your welcome to do whatever you want in your game. I was just simply stating if it wasn't laid out in a "custom rules sheet" or "house rules sheet" before hand that certain spells/ablities are completely open to you changing them on a whim I would walk out when that happened.
I know this is a bit off topic, but I have to say that I whole-heartedly disagree with this sentiment. Maybe it's just more difficult for me to find games, but if I left the table and walked out just because the GM made a ruling I didn't like I would never get to play.
There is no reason why things have to be 100% consistent all of the time. If something that was working in your game for levels 1-6 starts to cause problems 7+, then I don't see any problem in changing the adjudication on a spell or ability.
Also, maybe this is just my old-ness coming through, but I don't think that it's the GM's role to get browbeaten by rules-lawyers. Sometimes GM's have to fudge rules or makes up new things to keep the story going or to keep an encounter interesting.
Hey your welcome to do whatever you want in your game. I was just simply stating if it wasn't laid out in a "custom rules sheet" or "house rules sheet" before hand that certain spells/ablities are completely open to you changing them on a whim I would walk out when that happened.
Well when you're faced with having make a ruling on the fly or the internal consistency of your world utterly decimated, it is only fair to make the ruling.
|
|
Is all this hyperbole and strawman bashing of yours eventually going to lead to a salient point, or are you just trying to be irritating?
People in this thread are constantly harping about "efreeti have 3 wish every day through the use of servants, they are immune to perversion, so each individual is super powerful"
If instead of bashing you had read the post, you would have noticed that it was a reply to this:
Actually if the commoners in your world have access to 3 wishes every day for their entire life, I would not be terribly surprised if attempting to mug them resulted in you being instantly disintegrated.
I simply pointed out what would be the result if every member of a race had access to 3 wish a day for their entire life.
Maybe you too should train thread and post comprehension?
Is all this hyperbole and strawman bashing of yours eventually going to lead to a salient point, or are you just trying to be irritating?
People in this thread are constantly harping about "efreeti have 3 wish every day through the use of servants, they are immune to perversion, so each individual is super powerful"
If instead of bashing you had read the post, you would have noticed that it was a reply to this:
Actually if the commoners in your world have access to 3 wishes every day for their entire life, I would not be terribly surprised if attempting to mug them resulted in you being instantly disintegrated.I simply pointed out what would be the result if every member of a race had access to 3 wish a day for their entire life.
Maybe you too should train thread and post comprehension?
Can't ever have too many quote boxes in a thread with multiple parallel conversations.
|
|
The book does not say I need the DM's permission.
Everyone (100%) is aware that the DM has to okay any call. That's a cardinal rule.
Let's say I go with I decide to call an imp with class levels to up my chances instead of going with a sorcerer. The book just has a HD limit by your interpretation. I could go for the advanced template also since that does not even advance HD. The giant template does not advance HD either.
According to the exact language of the spell, you have to specify the type of creature you are calling, and that you must know the name of the creature for anything more specific than that. Class is not a creature type, so by the way the spell is worded, you cannot specify a class type. That's the argument from RAW. From RAI, your guess is as good as mine. From DM interpretation, the sky is the limit.
Now of course I don't expect a classed giant advanced imp, but my point is that by saying you don't think the game intends for the spell to apply to stock monsters only you open up a lot of weird things that don't need to be opened up.
First, just to reiterate my point, this is not something I would advocate doing as a standard practice. It is just something that I, as a DM, hold in reserve in case players are trying to abuse the system (like getting multiple wishes, with no chance of consequenes and no cost and no effort, from encounters where that level of reward is not warranted.) That said, it is rather pointless for anybody to be arguing RAI, since nobody actually knows RAI in many cases, they're just guessing RAI to bolster their own positions. And this is a case where advancing the creature within the limits of the spell certainly doesn't break the game, does act as a good game balancer, and is not contrary to the RAW. If the game had intended for the spells to only ever apply to stock creatures, they could easily have said so. Applying common sense to the spells in fine, and its encouraged. Apply absolutes where none have been stated or implied is simply house-ruling, no matter how much anyone tries to bolster it with fallacious arguments from RAI.
There is no reason why things have to be 100% consistent all of the time. If something that was working in your game for levels 1-6 starts to cause problems 7+, then I don't see any problem in changing the adjudication on a spell or ability.
I disagree. Things should always be consistent. That does not mean the DM can't change anything*, but they should be made known to the party. I would rather DM than play under a DM who makes up stuff as they go along. At least that way I know what is going on. This is not a rant against a DM's authority. It is a rant against too many changes that nobody knows about.
*Everyone has house rules.
|
|
People in this thread are constantly harping about "efreeti have 3 wish every day through the use of servants,
Nobody said all efreet have that. We've said that it is a distinct possibility for any given efreet to have access to such due to their society and world view.
they are immune to perversion,
Stated as an interpretation, and conceded a few posts later that it could be argued either way. As I said before, you would do well to read the whole thread before jumping the gun like that.
so each individual is super powerful"
Strawman. Nobody has ever said this in this thread, except for you and Darkheyr when you invented it as a strawman so you could knock it down. Do you understand what a strawman is? It's a logical fallacy in which you attack someone for making an argument or statement that they never made, then claim victory for knocking down said non-existant argument.
If instead of bashing you had read the post, you would have noticed that it was a reply to this:
I noticed that your reply to that contained a thinly veiled lash at what you have falsely accused me of saying. So don't try to play innocent now.
Everyone (100%) is aware that the DM has to okay any call. That's a cardinal rule.
The DM can make any call, but you can't say the books say X, and then switch your position to the DM can do anything.
So are we going to use the book(RAW) as the standard or not? In any discussion there must be some common ground.Planar binding does not specify a creature's name is needed(RAW). Yes I am well aware that a name is need, but the book only says I can request by type, and as you said the book does not limit you to stock monsters so why can't I can an 16 HD Imp?
My point is that you are arguing that it is ok by RAI, not that you think it is good for a standard practice. If it is RAI then the players can do it. Now if you are saying it is RAW, but not RAI then that is different, but when you first questioned my saying that the intent was for the spell to only call stock monsters you were at that point questioning RAI. Either the spell works a certain way by RAW or it does not. There is no player and DM version of the spell.
To recap:By your interpretation I can call the super imp as a player, and barring DM Fiat he just has to deal with it.
I disagree. Things should always be consistent. That does not mean the DM can't change anything*, but they should be made known to the party. I would rather DM than play under a DM who makes up stuff as they go along. At least that way I know what is going on. This is not a rant against a DM's authority. It is a rant against too many changes that nobody knows about.*Everyone has house rules.
I hear what you're saying, and I agree that consistency and transparency are important, you don't want to just be changing things on the fly. However, I don't think that there is any problem with running things one way for a while, recognizing that it is causing problems to your game, and then changing it for subsequent games.
That being said, I respect your point of view, I think we just have different opinions.
|
|
I disagree. Things should always be consistent. That does not mean the DM can't change anything*, but they should be made known to the party. I would rather DM than play under a DM who makes up stuff as they go along. At least that way I know what is going on. This is not a rant against a DM's authority. It is a rant against too many changes that nobody knows about.
I agree that things should always be consistent once they are introduced (and changed only by consensus of the entire group, which is the only way new house rules are introduced in my games). That doesn't mean that everything must be known and on the table from the first day. With any given spell, if nobody in the game has ever cast the spell, any issues with it aren't going to come up until someone does. I don't know one single DM who is going to pore through every word of every spell in every allowable book to look for every possible permutation that might cause strife at some future point in the game. That's just not time effective. What a DM lays out as house rules at the start of a campaign is, first, usually a compilation of issues that have come up in the past, and at best represents a small percentage of the issues that may arise in the future. DM's are not all-knowing and all-seeing, and as mere mortals, we are often forced to make a judgment on a rules question as it arises.
I hear what you're saying, and I agree that consistency and transparency are important, you don't want to just be changing things on the fly. However, I don't think that there is any problem with running things one way for a while, recognizing that it is causing problems to your game, and then changing it for subsequent games.
This I can agree with. I just don't want to be introduced to a new rule every session. I know that is now what you said, but I have had similar things happen to me before. It was not pleasant. I guess I had a flashback. :)
|
|
Planar binding does not specify a creature's name is needed(RAW).
No, but it does state that you have to name the creature type (that does not include class type).
Yes I am well aware that a name is need, but the book only says I can request by type, and as you said the book does not limit you to stock monsters so why can't I can an 16 HD Imp?
If you're using Greater Planar Binding, then the RAW does not bar you from calling a 16HD imp. But you as the player have no control over that, unless you know the exact imp in question and can give his true name.
My point is that you are arguing that it is ok by RAI, not that you think it is good for a standard practice. If it is RAI then the players can do it. Now if you are saying it is RAW, but not RAI then that is different, but when you first questioned my saying that the intent was for the spell to only call stock monsters you were at that point questioning RAI. Either the spell works a certain way by RAW or it does not.
I'm not arguing anything from RAI. I have said that I think arguing from RAI is pointless and rarely gets anybody anywhere, because it's a guessing game. But when you cited RAI, I simply asked you to support it by RAW. By a strict reading of RAW, there is nothing there that bars it, and I don't believe it defies common sense that it *could* happen as a remote possibility (or as DM fiat that doesn't defy the RAW, if such was needed).
There is no player and DM version of the spell.
No, there's not a different version, but there is a different level of interactability. That's when you should say to the DM, "You know, there is a remote chance that this could call some leveled version of the imp, so keep that in mind," then let the DM decide if it is warranted, according to what you hope to accomplish, or not. That sense of randomness is an important element of the spell, but the DM is not subject to the same level of randomness if he deems it necessary, for whatever reason, to trick it out a little.
Now, bear in mind, that just because a DM might, in some instances, decide by fiat to call something more than just the stock version of a creature, that doesn't mean it's always to act as a balance against the party. If the party is in a pickle, and the DM doesn't think that the stock version is going to be good enough to get you out, he could do the same thing in the party's favor. It works both ways.
No, but it does state that you have to name the creature type (that does not include class type).
That does not the class type can not be included. After all if you are going to argue that the spell does not exempt classed or other advanced monsters by RAW then why can't I argue the ability to call by class and type if the spell does not say I can't.
If your argument is now going to change to the spell needing to say "I can" as opposed to "not saying I can't" then why does that not apply to calling special monsters?
If you're using Greater Planar Binding, then the RAW does not bar you from calling a 16HD imp. But you as the player have no control over that,
unless you know the exact imp in question and can give his true name.
I am aware of how true names work from 3.5 lore, but the spell gives me no such limitation by RAW. RAI I agree with you.
edit: I forgot to get the last part.--> I don't think the RAW states that.
Reading this thread, I think I've got a near bulletproof way to do it. Depending on how long "negotiations" take, you can reasonably repeat this once a day, taking at most, a few minutes for negoations and the fullfilment of your wishes. Yes, this takes all 3 8th level spells you'll have at 16th level (including your bonus spell from high INT). Mind blank would be nice, but in this case, shouldn't be an issue. After the first day, you only need 1 8th, so you can start mindblanking on day 2 and beyond.
Only takes:
Magic Circle against Evil (3rd)
dimensional anchor (4th)
2 scry/greater scry (4th/7th)
planar binding (6th)
Trap the Soul (10,000GP and 8th)
Sympathy (1,500GP and 8th)
Moment of Prescience (8th)
How to bind repeated efreeti
Scry/greater scry to find specific generic (young? if they exist?) efreeti and get name of efreeti (this also ensures you're getting a 10HD efreeti)
Cast Trap the Soul trigger object with efreeti's name inscribed on trigger object (one-time cost of 10,000 gp)
Cast Sympathy on trigger object for first efreeti.
Scry to find another specific generic (young? if the exist?) efreeti and get name of efreeti
Magic circle against evil - prepped with take 20 on diagram (taking 3hrs20min)
Dimensional anchor cast prior to planar binding.
Planar binding for first specific efreeti
Moment of prescience for CHA check to negotiate (grant me 3 wishes in exchange for trigger object)
Wish #1 - Cast trap the soul trigger object for specific efreeti #2 (this provides the 10,000GP gem)
Wish #2 - Cast sympathy on trigger object for specific efreeti #2 (This provides the 1,500GP)
Wish #3 - What you're actually wanting
Give efreeti the trigger object per agreement, efreeti #1 is now imprisoned into the gem with no save.
Repeat from scrying for new efreeti.
Weakness, you end up with a big pile of trapped efreeti gems. When they break free, they have to perform ANOTHER service (possibly wishing them to lose all knowledge of you?).