The reason, as Leonardo Transco puts it, is because the monsters don't scape up to the abilities of the player characters properly. At least not in my opinion.
Answering the thread: becaus the defense dont keep up with the offense
Unless you play a monk. Or a Barbar. Or a Druid. Or a Paladin.
Answering the thread: becaus the defense dont keep up with the offenseUnless you play a monk. Or a Barbar. Or a Druid. Or a Paladin.
They all fall behind without heavy investment. Attack scales automatically at 1 per level and monster strength/size makes it scale even faster(this also works with monster CMD btw!). AC scales at... whatever pace you upgrade?
Very little scales at the pace of stacking magical buffs which tend to turn games into "Did you remember X? Ok well how about Y? Alright fine... what if I toss Q, P and Z at you? Oh that works... welp I just solved the adventure."
...Please show me RAW where other creatures may seek revenge for it.Page 8, Core rulebook.
"Helping them tell this story is the Game Master (or GM), who decides what threats the player characters (or PCs) face and what sorts of rewards they earn for succeeding at their quest. Think of it as a cooperative storytelling game, where the players play the protagonists and the Game Master acts as the narrator, controlling the rest of the world."
Another creature seeking revenge would be a threat the PCs face. Which as per the quoted paragraph is a decision the GM is able to make.
Now, I suppose you could make an interesting RAW vs RAI argument that the Game Master only controls the rest of the 'world' meaning that they have no control over extraplanar creatures. However it seems pretty clearly RAI that it's the entire multiverse of the campaign setting.
No the argument is that Rule 0 isn't RAW, because it can't be discussed or interpreted. Your GM might make Natural 1's critical fumbles, that is not RAW though and shouldn't be discussed as a reason why Full BAB classes are bad. Similarly, attempting to add outside circumstances besides "The creature may seek revenge" is a meaningless discussion. RAW, clearly the creature can seek revenge, but the spell is quite specific about that being the only drawback. You can cite Rule 0 all you want and if in your games you want it turn heaven/hell against the caster fine, but that's not any more RAW then it is that you get free treasure from people who you Klingon Promotioned for casting it. You can argue Planar Binding is not strong, but please use the actual rules to do so, not Rule 0.
@TOZ I have no need to save face, my argument is consistent in that the only RAW consequence of Planar Binding is that the creature might seek revenge. Discussing consequences outside of that is meaningless (and not RAW) for the reason proscribed above. (Also, I have suggested more then once you yourself
You cannot interpret Rule 0 as it will vary from GM to GM, thus it is not RAW for purposes of discussing rules. Your argument amounts to "Full BAB classes are bad because my GM rules that natural 1's are critical failures."
For example your GM might rule 0 Planar Binding to send heaven and hell against the caster, while my GM might dictate it gives me free money from Klingon promoted subordinates. Since we can't discuss these differences, there's no meaning to bringing Rule 0 into a discussion and you should stick to the RAW which is "the creature might seek revenge".
Person cites rule.
You call rule, rule 0.
Person did not cite rule 0...
What part of "Helping them tell this story is the Game Master (or GM), who decides what threats the player characters (or PCs) face and what sorts of rewards they earn for succeeding at their quest. Think of it as a cooperative storytelling game, where the players play the protagonists and the Game Master acts as the narrator, controlling the rest of the world." is rule 0 to you?
You cannot interpret Rule 0 as it will vary from GM to GM, thus it is not RAW for purposes of discussing rules. Your argument amounts to "Full BAB classes are bad because my GM rules that natural 1's are critical failures."
For example your GM might rule 0 Planar Binding to send heaven and hell against the caster, while my GM might dictate it gives me free money from Klingon promoted subordinates. Since we can't discuss these differences, there's no meaning to bringing Rule 0 into a discussion and you should stick to the RAW which is "the creature might seek revenge".
Do you even know what rule 0 is?
They all fall behind without heavy investment. Attack scales automatically at 1 per level and monster strength/size makes it scale even faster(this also works with monster CMD btw!). AC scales at... whatever pace you upgrade?Answering the thread: becaus the defense dont keep up with the offenseUnless you play a monk. Or a Barbar. Or a Druid. Or a Paladin.
CMD is an example where defense WAY outpaces offence. From late-mid to high levels, CMBs just can't hope to break a CMD without an archetype and feat investment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rule 0
The unwritten rule of tabletop Role Playing Games:
The Game/Dungeon Master has the right to veto anything any player says, he has the right to change any rule or make up his own, he need not explain why he choses to do these things. If players complain the GM may choose any of the following to do to the player; slap, call a dumbass, restrict snackage privileges and/or threaten injury to ingame character(be it through loss of xp, health, items or gold)Player: Can I make my own species for my familiar
DM: Hells no! I'm gonna have to Rule 0 that one
Player: B#&#+
DM: I swear I will cut you off of the mountain dew boy
Player: I'm sorry master.
Which is not the same thing as
Helping them tell this story is the Game Master (or GM), who decides what threats the player characters (or PCs) face and what sorts of rewards they earn for succeeding at their quest. Think of it as a cooperative storytelling game, where the players play the protagonists and the Game Master acts as the narrator, controlling the rest of the world.
BECMI Hit dice all topped at 9 for the character classes. The racial classes for demihumans also were all hit dice.
Exception: The Halflings Gazeteer book introduced a 36 level Halfling class that ended up with a lot of hit dice and hit points, and was probably the single toughest character class in the whole game.
1E had variable amounts of hit dice for classes, before per-levels kicked in. Druids got 15d8, Barbs got 8d12, rangers got 11d8, thieves got 10d6, wizards got 11d4...
All part of the balancing act, and feasible because the damage limits were much, more lower then 3E, which scales more like a video game.
==Aelryinth
Rule 0
The unwritten rule of tabletop Role Playing Games:
The Game/Dungeon Master has the right to veto anything any player says, he has the right to change any rule or make up his own, he need not explain why he choses to do these things. If players complain the GM may choose any of the following to do to the player; slap, call a dumbass, restrict snackage privileges and/or threaten injury to ingame character(be it through loss of xp, health, items or gold)Player: Can I make my own species for my familiar
DM: Hells no! I'm gonna have to Rule 0 that one
Player: B%$+&
DM: I swear I will cut you off of the mountain dew boy
Player: I'm sorry master.Which is not the same thing as
Helping them tell this story is the Game Master (or GM), who decides what threats the player characters (or PCs) face and what sorts of rewards they earn for succeeding at their quest. Think of it as a cooperative storytelling game, where the players play the protagonists and the Game Master acts as the narrator, controlling the rest of the world.
Sure please point me to the uniform rules on what players face/rewards they earn and we can start talking RAW. As it is though, the RAW of Planar Binding is that "the creature may seek revenge". That and that alone is the balancing factor. Trying to bring in "hell may attack you" as a balancing point to it is unhelpful the discussion as there are no rules that stipulate that anymore then there are rules that stipulate that it gets you free treasure. I personally find the free treasure and xp aspect of the spell overpowered myself, but you'll note I didn't try and pretend it that it was RAW.
CMD is an example where defense WAY outpaces offence. From late-mid to high levels, CMBs just can't hope to break a CMD without an archetype and feat investment.They all fall behind without heavy investment. Attack scales automatically at 1 per level and monster strength/size makes it scale even faster(this also works with monster CMD btw!). AC scales at... whatever pace you upgrade?Answering the thread: becaus the defense dont keep up with the offenseUnless you play a monk. Or a Barbar. Or a Druid. Or a Paladin.
Offense is so highter than defense that things like CMD and CMB became unusual at high level
Sure please point me to the uniform rules on what players face/rewards they earn and we can start talking RAW. As it is though, the RAW of Planar Binding is that "the creature may seek revenge". That and that alone is the balancing factor. Trying to bring in "hell may attack you" as a balancing point to it is unhelpful the discussion as there are no rules that stipulate that anymore then there are rules that stipulate that it gets you free treasure. I personally find the free treasure and xp aspect of the spell overpowered myself, but you'll note I didn't try and pretend it that it was RAW.Rule 0
The unwritten rule of tabletop Role Playing Games:
The Game/Dungeon Master has the right to veto anything any player says, he has the right to change any rule or make up his own, he need not explain why he choses to do these things. If players complain the GM may choose any of the following to do to the player; slap, call a dumbass, restrict snackage privileges and/or threaten injury to ingame character(be it through loss of xp, health, items or gold)Player: Can I make my own species for my familiar
DM: Hells no! I'm gonna have to Rule 0 that one
Player: B%$+&
DM: I swear I will cut you off of the mountain dew boy
Player: I'm sorry master.Which is not the same thing as
Helping them tell this story is the Game Master (or GM), who decides what threats the player characters (or PCs) face and what sorts of rewards they earn for succeeding at their quest. Think of it as a cooperative storytelling game, where the players play the protagonists and the Game Master acts as the narrator, controlling the rest of the world.
Game Master acts as the narrator, controlling the rest of the world.
This is a rule by RAW. The GM is free to roleplay NPCs. Which is what called creatures and creatures they know are.
Sure please point me to the uniform rules on what players face/rewards they earn and we can start talking RAW. As it is though, the RAW of Planar Binding is that "the creature may seek revenge". That and that alone is the balancing factor. Trying to bring in "hell may attack you" as a balancing point to it is unhelpful the discussion as there are no rules that stipulate that anymore then there are rules that stipulate that it gets you free treasure. I personally find the free treasure and xp aspect of the spell overpowered myself, but you'll note I didn't try and pretend it that it was RAW.Rule 0
The unwritten rule of tabletop Role Playing Games:
The Game/Dungeon Master has the right to veto anything any player says, he has the right to change any rule or make up his own, he need not explain why he choses to do these things. If players complain the GM may choose any of the following to do to the player; slap, call a dumbass, restrict snackage privileges and/or threaten injury to ingame character(be it through loss of xp, health, items or gold)Player: Can I make my own species for my familiar
DM: Hells no! I'm gonna have to Rule 0 that one
Player: B%$+&
DM: I swear I will cut you off of the mountain dew boy
Player: I'm sorry master.Which is not the same thing as
Helping them tell this story is the Game Master (or GM), who decides what threats the player characters (or PCs) face and what sorts of rewards they earn for succeeding at their quest. Think of it as a cooperative storytelling game, where the players play the protagonists and the Game Master acts as the narrator, controlling the rest of the world.Game Master acts as the narrator, controlling the rest of the world.
This is a rule by RAW. The GM is free to roleplay NPCs. Which is what called creatures and creatures they know are.
Exactly, hence why I said that Planar Binding gets you free treasure and XP, and that seems OP and according to you that's RAW (this is why claiming Rule 0 is RAW is a bad idea, consensus is impossible).
You clearly don't understand what Rule 0 is or you refuse to understand what rule 0 is.
Continuing this conversation with you is pointless. (More so than posting on the forums normally is)
You clearly don't understand that discussing Rule 0 when talking about the rules leads to meaningless conversations, because Rule 0 isn't RAW. I'm glad I was able to demonstrate why Rule 0 is meaningless in these discussions, though as I've demonstrated enough knowledge to know it's futility I think it should really be noted I understand quite thoroughly what it is (and that it is not RAW.)
Edit @ TOZ - Well you got me there, Planar Binding is free treasure, xp and a disposable combat asset for the cost of a spell slot (and some time, can't forget time).
I've demonstrated enough knowledgeBwuhahahaha!
Oh you mean its not Rule 0 when a demon that has been Klingon promoted by my actions rewards me with treasure? Cause I'm pretty sure it is... what with the situation not being covered under the rules. Or is it also not Rule 0 when nothing happens after the bound demon dies because no demon cares (and quite frankly believe only the weak would perish to a mortal). Is it Rule 0 when Angel praise my efforts and offer to help for free? Please do tell.
So your character swearing vengeance for the death of Bob the NPC is Rule 0?
Has the definition of Rule 0 become 'anything not covered in the rules'?
That's roleplay~! You'll note swearing vengeance has no mechanical benefits under the rules so swear it all you like! The issue with Rule 0 in these conversations is when people try and use effects outside a spell to balance it, such as for example having all of hell come after you once a few called demons go missing. That is absolutely Rule 0 because that drawback is not part of the spell of all.
|
That's roleplay~!
But only when the player does it, and not the GM? THEN it is Rule 0?
The issue with Rule 0 in these conversations is when people try and use effects outside a spell to balance it...
Only I'm not trying to balance the spell. I'm just telling you what would happen to PCs that use it.
That's roleplay~!But only when the player does it, and not the GM? THEN it is Rule 0?
I edited my above post slightly to explain why it is Rule 0 in this situation. If the GM wants to roleplay the creature seeking revenge thats fine (of course it'll be dead so...) The problem is when he wants to "roleplay" all of hell coming after the caller, since such a drawback is not part of the spell. Both that situation and my proposed analogy scenarios of receiving treasure or angelic praise are both equally valid outcomes of using Planar Binding, so saying "hell will come after you" is meaningless to add to the discussion as are my analogies.
The problem is when he wants to "roleplay" all of hell coming after the caller, since such a drawback is not part of the spell.Never have I claimed this to be part of the spell. As many have already said, it is a consequence of the characters actions.
Which can be taken into account when considering the balance of a spell.
The problem is when he wants to "roleplay" all of hell coming after the caller, since such a drawback is not part of the spell.Never have I claimed this to be part of the spell. As many have already said, it is a consequence of the characters actions.
Yes but so is receiving free treasure and angelic praise, which is analogous to the scenario you proposed. Both are equally valid possibilities, but neither should be considered when discussing the spell.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes but so is receiving free treasure and angelic praise, which is analogous to the scenario you proposed. Both are equally valid possibilities, but neither should be considered when discussing the spell.
When determining how you will use it in a game, which response the GM will use is a valid consideration.
Which can be taken into account when considering the balance of a spell.Roleplaying considerations make horrible mechanics balancers.
I think we are ultimately in agreement but are approaching our arguments from different viewpoints. Also +1.
Edit: Bah ninja double post mucked it up. Anyway it is a valid consideration in anyone persons particular game yes, its just not much of a consideration when discussing it on a messageboard as your mileage may vary (significantly) and certainly not when discussing why the mechanics of why the game breaks apart. Again I think we're in agreement on this I'm just using this edit to explain my viewpoint.
Which can be taken into account when considering the balance of a spell.Roleplaying considerations make horrible mechanics balancers.
True, but it is a part of how these rules are balanced. Even though they are not perfectly balanced, ignoring "roleplaying considerations"/"consequences for actions" only serves to further disbalance the rules.
+1? Are we talking about math again!
True, but it is a part of how these rules are balanced. Even though they are not perfectly balanced, ignoring "roleplaying considerations"/"consequences for actions" only serves to further disbalance the rules.Which can be taken into account when considering the balance of a spell.Roleplaying considerations make horrible mechanics balancers.
They aren't balanced by them though. You feel that you can make them that way, but as my "consequences" of free treasure and angelic praise show, they make poor balancers.
Edit @ TOZ - My comment about roleplay being "Rule 0" was only in the context of when "roleplay" was being used to balance a spell which makes it less roleplay and more a mechanic.
Never! Planar binding, misfortune hex, CRITICAL HITS! They're CRITICAL! I tried being on topic but it was already in the middle of this off-topic-ness.
They aren't balanced by them though. You feel that you can make them that way, but as my "consequences" of free treasure and angelic praise show, they make poor balancers.True, but it is a part of how these rules are balanced. Even though they are not perfectly balanced, ignoring "roleplaying considerations"/"consequences for actions" only serves to further disbalance the rules.Which can be taken into account when considering the balance of a spell.Roleplaying considerations make horrible mechanics balancers.
This is where your and my group differ.
We see planar binding as a high risk, high reward spell where a mortal interferes with forces far beyond his/her control.
Your group sees it as a way to make b&#+@es with spell slots.
Technically both are RAW interpretations. I just think your view puts the GM into some absurd roleplaying situations. Which makes it something that won't come up in most sensical games where balance and logic do matter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's roleplay~! You'll note swearing vengeance has no mechanical benefits under the rules so swear it all you like! The issue with Rule 0 in these conversations is when people try and use effects outside a spell to balance it, such as for example having all of hell come after you once a few called demons go missing. That is absolutely Rule 0 because that drawback is not part of the spell of all.So your character swearing vengeance for the death of Bob the NPC is Rule 0?
Has the definition of Rule 0 become 'anything not covered in the rules'?
if you throw a fireball at a crowd attending the duke's party, expect the duke's guards to make an attempt to apprehend, detain, and maybe execute you. the same realistic logic would apply to the friends of those bound angels investigating the disappearance of their celestial allies, and killing the ones responsible for their death.
it's not mentioned in the spell description, because it's not a consequence of the spell, it's a consequence of murdering the angel you bound and enslaved against their will.
if you throw a fireball at a crowd attending the duke's party, expect the duke's guards to make an attempt to apprehend, detain, and maybe execute you. the same realistic logic would apply to the friends of those bound angels investigating the disappearance of their celestial allies, and killing the ones responsible for their death.That's roleplay~! You'll note swearing vengeance has no mechanical benefits under the rules so swear it all you like! The issue with Rule 0 in these conversations is when people try and use effects outside a spell to balance it, such as for example having all of hell come after you once a few called demons go missing. That is absolutely Rule 0 because that drawback is not part of the spell of all.So your character swearing vengeance for the death of Bob the NPC is Rule 0?
Has the definition of Rule 0 become 'anything not covered in the rules'?
If I just blew up half his room I expect him to fear me to be honest. After all, there's a good chance I can do it again...
A series of abuses of outsiders are well described by the True Name discovery.
Your researches into ancient tomes and your inquisitions of bound spirits have led you to one of the best-hidden secrets of the multiverse: the true name of an outsider—the name that defines the very essence of the creature and that gives the speaker control over the being. This outsider can have no more than 12 Hit Dice. Once per day, you can speak the common name by which the outsider is known, and the outsider travels to you as if you had cast planar binding upon it. It must obey you to the best of its ability, without pay or bargaining for its services, for its fear that you might release its true name to the wider world is enough to bring even the most recalcitrant of outsiders to bear.
If the creature is within 100 feet, as a move action, you may punish it by deliberately mispronouncing its name, wracking its very essence and giving it the sickened and staggered conditions for 1 round (even if the creature is normally immune to these conditions). You cannot use true name in an area of silence, but the creature does not have to be able to hear you for it to be harmed by the ability.
It is in your best interest to call this creature only sparingly, and occasionally reward it in some fashion to mollify its wrath. If you repeatedly fail to offer it a reward appropriate to its type and ethos, the creature may begin plotting ways to destroy the bond between you, whether by creating an accident that will destroy your memory of the name, by plaguing you with nuisances or dangers until you vow never to call on it again, or by actively seeking to destroy you through its own devices or those of an underling. If this creature is of a lawful type and you are violating its ethos, its superiors may even destroy it or you rather than allow you to contaminate their servant further. Worse, they may establish situations where it is necessary for you to summon this outsider, opening gateways to infernal or angelic interference, in order to gain a foothold on the Material Plane.
You may select this discovery multiple times. Each time you select this discovery, it applies to a different, specific outsider. You must be at least an 11th-level wizard to select this discovery. If you select this discovery at 15th level or higher, the creature may have up to 18 Hit Dice and the call acts as greater planar binding instead of planar binding.
I see zero valid reason why these can't apply to regular usage of the planar binding spells. You're still plucking away a being from it's natural order. It's superiors, friends, and even enemies, will notice and likely do something.
If I just blew up half his room I expect him to fear me to be honest. After all, there's a good chance I can do it again...
In the typical Golarion setting? No way. Courts generally have powerful casters in attendance and numerous alliances to pull resources with to execute a protracted mage hunt, if necessary.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tough crowd.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At higher levels, I suggest assume immunities. Protection from evil, death ward, whatever... heck, paladins get immunity to fear at low level. So I don't have a problem with saying, okay, basically, Fighters and Clerics are immune to Fortitude effects, for the most part at high levels. I go ahead and pitch my DCs toward the softer end. I mix in lower CR monsters in high CR encounters to act as speed bumps. I set my "boss fighters" at APL +3 to APL +8 or so. Similarly, I treat very high skill ratings as they were spells; Stealth rogues are basically "invisible" against a certain kind of opponent, but have an even shot against Perception specialized opponents, and some opponents are "immune" by virtue of very high bonuses.
I run games were dispel magic and break enchantment get a lot of tactical use. In the course of a 20 level campaign, I'll kill about 20% of the PCs permanently, usually in a hideously glorious situation, but occasionally falling prey to player hubris.
I use PC wealth levels pretty normally, but from time to time I give them some real treasures, something that is itself powerful enough to be a game-changer, and I let them play with it. Other times, they are under constant pressure from enemies and travel they don't have time to "go to town" even as often as once a level and buy stuff. In the end, I aim for the middle, but there is a lot of value to be had in pushing toward each edge for comparison.
I try to make magical and counter-magical threats as varied, interesting, and powerful as mundane obstacles are to low level characters. It's a funny thing to assume that interplanar travel is always as simple as a city bus ride. When I introduce powerful planar threats, they come complete with planar "weather" and all sorts of other wrinkles.
All that to say, the game changes at higher levels. And it should. Otherwise, what's the point of leveling at all?
No the argument is that Rule 0 isn't RAW, because it can't be discussed or interpreted.
As soon as someone quotes Rule 0, this will be relevant. Until then, let's discuss RAW.
Based on exception based design principles, Planar Binding as a spell is a specific rule and as such overrides general rules. The section I previously quoted on page 8 is a general rule and therefore will be overridden by any specific contradictions that occur within the spell.
Therefore if the spell had stated, "Only the creature summoned may seek revenge" then it would contradict the general rule of the GM determining actions of NPCs and Monsters and require that no other creature would potentially avenge their fallen comrade.
However if you pay close attention to the wording if the spell it lacks the word "only", therefore making a positive statement about what can happen and not implying any restrictions on potential outcomes.
Therefore your statement:
When the spells says that only the creature will seek you out for revenge?
Has been demonstrated to be an incorrect interpretation of the rules.
Your GM might make Natural 1's critical fumbles, that is not RAW though and shouldn't be discussed as a reason why Full BAB classes are bad.
Irrelevant as incorrect analogy. No one has suggested house-rules.
RAW, clearly the creature can seek revenge, but the spell is quite specific about that being the only drawback.
Incorrect as the spell is only specific about it being a drawback and not the only drawback. This is like reading a spell description in isolation without reading the Magic section and therefore making false assumptions about what the spell does or doesn't do. The rule exists in the context of a larger system.
You can cite Rule 0 all you want and if in your games you want it turn heaven/hell against the caster fine, but that's not any more RAW then it is that you get free treasure from people who you Klingon Promotioned for casting it.
You can cite Rule 0 all you want and state that only the creature can come after the caster, but that's not RAW either as demonstrated above.
You've been making a positive statement specifying exactly what will happen when using the spell Planar Binding (that you are safe as long as you murder the creature before duration elapses) which is not supported by RAW.
I've never stated that other creatures will seek revenge, as that will vary from campaign to campaign and GM to GM. You however are saying that they will assuredly not, which is incorrect as per the rules of the game and also incorrect in any practical assessment as it will vary from campaign to campaign and GM to GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread's attracting a lot of flags. Please keep it civil.
No the argument is that Rule 0 isn't RAW, because it can't be discussed or interpreted.As soon as someone quotes Rule 0, this will be relevant. Until then, let's discuss RAW.
Based on exception based design principles, Planar Binding as a spell is a specific rule and as such overrides general rules. The section I previously quoted on page 8 is a general rule and therefore will be overridden by any specific contradictions that occur within the spell.
Therefore if the spell had stated, "Only the creature summoned may seek revenge" then it would contradict the general rule of the GM determining actions of NPCs and Monsters and require that no other creature would potentially avenge their fallen comrade.
However if you pay close attention to the wording if the spell it lacks the word "only", therefore making a positive statement about what can happen and not implying any restrictions on potential outcomes.
Therefore your statement:
When the spells says that only the creature will seek you out for revenge?Has been demonstrated to be an incorrect interpretation of the rules.
Your GM might make Natural 1's critical fumbles, that is not RAW though and shouldn't be discussed as a reason why Full BAB classes are bad.Irrelevant as incorrect analogy. No one has suggested house-rules.
RAW, clearly the creature can seek revenge, but the spell is quite specific about that being the only drawback.Incorrect as the spell is only specific about it being a drawback and not the only drawback. This is like reading a spell description in isolation without reading the Magic section and therefore making false assumptions about what the spell does or doesn't do. The rule exists in the context of a larger system.
You can cite Rule 0 all you want and if in your games you want it turn heaven/hell against the caster fine, but that's not any more RAW then it is that you get free treasure from people who...
Well if we're going with what the spell doesn't say, then who cares if the creatures hunt you down and killing. After all the dead condition doesn't say I can take actions...
The spell has a listed drawback, "The creature may seek revenge." No, it doesn't say "only" it doesn't *HAVE* to. It's already listed the drawback. Your argument is that Blood Money says you take STR damage, but it doesn't say you don't take CON damage from blood loss, so you should take that. Your adding words to the spell that aren't there and pretending that it is somehow in the rules despite being written no where (I am still waiting on a citation.)
Oh man the logic puzzle that is "The listed drawback are not the only drawbacks" makes for a poor argument.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh man the logic puzzle that is "The listed drawback are not the only drawbacks" makes for a poor argument.
You are suggesting a course of action more drastic than that which the spell assumes, so why should one believe that such cannot carry greater drawbacks?
This is like claiming that you can break the WBL table by murdering shopkeepers and taking all their coin instead of selling looted treasure to them, with no drawbacks, because the only drawback to be found for selling gear in the books is the 50% price.
You aren't selling gear anymore, you have adopted a more drastic approach to the whole question, so other considerations will probably come into play.
And you aren't within the rails of a typical planar binding anymore, you've adopted a more drastic approach to that whole question, so other things will also likely come into play.
Rule 0 does not arise at any point in either situation, because neither of them involve the GM changing rules; no more than the GM has to change the rules for a longsword to play out the consequences of murdering a shopkeeper with one.
Now personally, I think that binding demons to destroy them is cool (and murdering shopkeepers might also be cool in an evil game). But a default assumption that such will be consequence-free, is actually less cool. One should assume that the GM will provide some challenges associated with such. Just like in any other game.
Anzyr, I'm having a hard time understanding what you're trying to argue.
Your original statement that the spell 'only' permits vengeance from one party isn't true as shown by a literal reading of the text.
Your request that the a rule be cited that the GM can determine the reactions of NPCs to occurrences has been met (since you claim to still be waiting, please refer to page 8 CRB).
You keep bringing up house rules and examples of house rules when no one has mentioned any. You also mention rule zero which has never been invoked.
Despite wracking my brain, I can only come up with two interpretations of your argument. I'll list them below.
1) You're suggesting that NPCs don't react to spells unless it states in the spell "this causes an NPC reaction" and that adding that in would be a house-rule? Thus mention of rule zero and house rules.
2) You're using an unusual definition of the word safe wherein an action is safe if any repercussions are based on GM interpretation which might vary. In which case it would be safe in that there are no guaranteed repercussions whereas everyone else's usage of the word is meaning that there is a possibility of repercussions based on how the GM plays their NPCs.
If it's the first then that's an unusual point of view and one which I've never seen represented in the rules.
If it's the second, then your assurance that planar binding is safe so long as you murder the summoned creature might confuse people who expect it to apply within a standard Pathfinder game.
Or are you arguing something different that I haven't been able to figure out? If so, I'd appreciate you clarifying this for me.