By the way, doesn't killing most extra planar creatures on the Material Plane just make them pop back onto their home plane, where they can lick their wounds and plot their vengeance?
Read rules on [conjuration] vs. [calling].
By the way, doesn't killing most extra planar creatures on the Material Plane just make them pop back onto their home plane, where they can lick their wounds and plot their vengeance?
Nope!
Calling spells such as Planar Binding and Planar Ally bring them fer reals.
Only demons I think get to reform eventually.
|
Rules:
"You may try to use a wish to produce greater effects than these, but doing so is dangerous. (The wish may pervert your intent into a literal but undesirable fulfillment or only a partial fulfillment, at the GM's discretion.)"
It's the wish itself that perverts your intent.
Since you are fond of including material from AP's as RAW:
Many genies can grant wishes to those who bind them, best them, or earn from them a favor. However, it is widely held that one must be very wary of the wording used in such a wish. When dealing with geniekin, the saying "be careful what you wished for" takes on a life and death meaning
Many genies can grant wishes to those who bind them, best them, or earn from them a favor. However, it is widely held that one must be very wary of the wording used in such a wish. When dealing with geniekin, the saying "be careful what you wished for" takes on a life and death meaning
Oh boy more fluff being taken as rules.
I remember when we were talking about how spellcasters could be a problem instead of stuck on one spell...
Is it a problem if you spend an hour talking about how planar binding works and what's fair?
To be fair, planar binding and its myriad exploits are standing in for the entire canon of easily-exploitable, poorly-written spells found in the Core rulebook.
Couldn't you just place a contingency spell on the genie, that kills it after your wish is granted, if you're really worried?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If someone spending over an hour grasping at straws to "prove" how a single trick available to casters is not as ovepowered as it seems, doesn't that make even more obvious that castes are too poweful?
BTW, I love seeing the same people who claim casters are only OP if you allow every book claim that Fighters/Rogues/whatever are not underpowered because of stuff like the Lore Warden archetype.
|
|
If someone spending over an hour grasping at straws to "prove" how a single trick available to casters is not as ovepowered as it seems, doesn't that make even more obvious that castes are too poweful?
No.
The point was, every time you argue ability X is too powerful, your probably glossing over the limiting factors.
In this case, the fact that RAW includes a negative with Planer Binding is overlooked every single time people try to abuse the spell as part of the process of proving casters are overpowered.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the spell combinations being used to justify the argument.I remember when we were talking about how spellcasters could be a problem instead of stuck on one spell...
Is it a problem if you spend an hour talking about how planar binding works and what's fair?
Right, and not like, Charm Person, Dimensional Door, invisibility, flight, or teleport. I mean these are all core things, and the casters can use it to empower their narrative and have to be planned around, but those things aren't things we'll talk about. Clearly its important to clarify whether invisibility makes you quiet(no, but stealth is one check anyway for silence and visibility), Blood Money can be used ever(Varies with game group, on its own its insane)or whether planar binding comes to bite you in the butt(GM's digression). I don't know how its productive that you talk about something that's up to GM's digression and not pointing to the other toys.
One time I made a pit. This pit let me bypass an encounter. It was a magical super pit. This is a 2nd level spell. I've done this at all sorts of spell levels in all sorts of games. What class features have I used with my martials to bypass a problem? None really, because they pretty much just smack things in the face in pathfinder. Even my Warblade came with a good power to break a wall down or see the invisible.
My own experience is that once wizards hit level 5 (3rd level spells) the game changes and challenging encounters have to be designed with a wizard in mind, and once wizards hit level 11 (6th level spells) the game changes again and in order to be a challenge the encounters have to be designed around the wizard instead of just accounting for the wizard. Clerics, sorcs & druids also present a problem to challenge without overwhelming mundane characters, but wizards are by far the worst.My experience matches this as well.
If I have a party where the closest thing to a spellcaster is a bard or Inquisitor, it really feels like we're playing a different type of game than one with full casters, with big dynamic shifts around the levels you mentioned. I have to start thinking not just about what would be a good encounter to include in the game, but I have to expand that to everything surrounding the encounter to try and account for all of the possible permutations on the planned adventure the wizard can bring to bear.
How many ways can he bypass these encounters, and how many can he bypass?
Does he have alternatives for circumventing the need for the macguffin?
Is it going to hurt or help the story if I let him use his abilities to subvert the intended plot?
Etc.
For example:
** spoiler omitted **...
I'd like to point out an actual on topic post that got into something as simple as fly destroying an encounter in an AP.
There was another one about making simulacrums of yourself. Which is a legit use of spell and talking about using Animate Dead with it to have massive armies. Hell even sno-cone magic item crafters would be pretty nice too.
The are actual legit ways casters can break the game. Sno-cone wish factories, ignoring the RP elements of planar binding, and blood money are not what people should be focusing on. These rules debates are obscuring anything relevant from this thread.
|
|
Ordering the genie to hang around for an extra ten minutes as part of the task is perfectly valid and that doesn't refute the first idea either.Ignoring the rules about the genie instantly disappearing upon task completion.
Not really. The player can play around that too (by not being an ass or by being an extra ass and murdering his wishbot when he's finished).
1 task. Grant my wish.
You want a second task, you'll need another Planar Binding
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The spell doesn't say the creature will come back for revenge. It says it might come back for revenge. You know what else might come back for revenge? Every single thing the Fighter stabs.
|
|
The are actual legit ways casters can break the game. Sno-cone wish factories, ignoring the RP elements of planar binding, and blood money are not what people should be focusing on. These rules debates are obscuring anything relevant from this thread.
I agree. The problem is, every single time a topic like this comes up the thread devolves into people using the most broken possible interpretation of the rules combined with a handful a spells whose limiting factors tend to be ignored.
The spell doesn't say the creature will come back for revenge. It says it might come back for revenge. You know what else might come back for revenge? Every single thing the Fighter stabs.
Well, supposing they get away or get a rez. You didn't check to make sure they're unconscious. Better decapitate them, burn the corpse, and dump the ashes in acid, just to make sure. Never know, they might know witchcraft.
Pretty much anything can come back for revenge though.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The spell doesn't say the creature will come back for revenge. It says it might come back for revenge. You know what else might come back for revenge? Every single thing the Fighter stabs.
And ignoring something explicitly written into the spell description is GM Fiat.
Now, if the wizard was bargaining in good faith and offering fair compensation, revenge would be unlikely.
The wizard would also be paying for the acquired power out of obtained wealth.
|
|
Though I guess if you wanted to be really really pedantic like that, silence the creature so it can't inform you that it completed its task.
If I wanted to be pendantic, I would point out that the notice does not have to be verbal or delivered in person.
The spell doesn't have that language. You can compel the creature to perform a service but there's no such "only X components per service" language anywhere in there (alternatively you can just keep it bound since that's open ended and bargain with it).
Planar Binding has no language on the subject, one way or the other.
Guess who the arbitrator is?
Now, if the wizard was bargaining in good faith and offering fair compensation, revenge would be unlikely.
The wizard would also be paying for the acquired power out of obtained wealth.
Ideally he gets compensated for that eventually to keep up with WBL, unless you don't use WBL, in which case you might just use your wizard levels to get a hold of a mass wealth because even a level one spell can lead to a massive fortune.
Its also still an option that the wizard can use and ideally take the narrative with. Lots of things you can do with an outsider at your side. They cast spells after all, and have all sorts of other nifty abilities.
Detect Magic, Silent Image, Alter Self, Invisibility, Fly, Wall of Stone, Teleport, Dominate Person/Monster, summoning in general...
Having just a handful of these spells already gives casters more versatility and narrative power than most martial classes will ever have.
And ignoring something explicitly written into the spell description is GM Fiat.
How is it ignoring? The spell doesn' say the creature will certainly, without any doubt, come back for revenge. It says the ceature might do it. Just like any other creature who has been wronged by the PC (e.g.: the target of a Fireball spell might try to take revenge on you).
And if it does come back... Good! PCs live to defeat enemies and overcome challenges! Might as well have some nice backstory to it. Or are you implying that the spell says the creature will not only certainly attack the caster, but also do it with the help of enemies who are far beyond the appropriate CR for the caster?
|
|
I'd like to point out an actual on topic post that got into something as simple as fly destroying an encounter in an AP.
There was another one about making simulacrums of yourself. Which is a legit use of spell and talking about using Animate Dead with it to have massive armies. Hell even sno-cone magic item crafters would be pretty nice too.
The are actual legit ways casters can break the game. Sno-cone wish factories, ignoring the RP elements of planar binding, and blood money are not what people should be focusing on. These rules debates are obscuring anything relevant from this thread.
Thanks for trying. It's nice to know someone actually read that.
I think we've probably got another page or two of these planar binding back and forths though...
Detect Magic, Silent Image, Alter Self, Invisibility, Fly, Wall of Stone, Teleport, Dominate Person/Monster, summoning in general...
Having just a handful of these spells already gives casters more versatility and narrative power than most martial classes will ever have.
Aye, and quiet a few of them may need to be planned around to come up with a good challenge for the party. If your going purely narrative that's a lot of power at your disposal too! Could be pretty easy to conquer a kingdom.
|
|
How is it ignoring? The spell doesn' say the creature will certainly, without any doubt, come back for revenge. It says the ceature might do it... Just like any other creature who has been wronged by the PC (e.g.: the target of a Fireball spell might try to take revenge on you).
The spell gives the option to barter in good faith for services rendered. With the option for revenge if service is forced.
The option of revenge is the limiting factor. You cannot force service without consequence.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The are actual legit ways casters can break the game. Sno-cone wish factories, ignoring the RP elements of planar binding, and blood money are not what people should be focusing on. These rules debates are obscuring anything relevant from this thread.I agree. The problem is, every single time a topic like this comes up the thread devolves into people using the most broken possible interpretation of the rules combined with a handful a spells whose limiting factors tend to be ignored.
You mean "uses the rules that are written in the book". The bigger issue is when people come on in with made up handicaps and pretend that those are valid.
The option of revenge is the limiting factor. You cannot force service without consequence.
Sure you can. The creature might come back for revenge, but it might not.
Maybe it's smart enough to realize a caster who can bind it can probably kick its ass as well. Maybe it has other stuff to do. Maybe it's really forgiving, naive or forgetful. Maybe it's killed by something else while plotting its revenge against the caster...
BTW, the option to barter in good faith doesn' make the spell any less powerful. In fact, it makes the spell even better. The caster has two choices instead of one. And both of them are far beyond any narrative power a Fighter can have by virtue of his class features.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Other point being that "might come back for revenge" is something that applies to any harmful effect in the game that doesn't kill the target. So emphasizing it so much hear like you're doing seems.. odd.
That's my point. Saying the creature might come back for revenge is not any more limiting to the spell than it is for anything else.
Hell, that'd be the case even if it wasn't written in the spell. So what? How does that possibility limit anything?
The sentence is not a spell-specific limit as much as it's a reminder that actions have consequences and most creatures don't enjoy being bossed around.
"ah man someone keeps killing my brother efreets after extracting wishes! We need this to stop! Quick lets barter with some poor dirt farmers so we can use our wishes to find them and make revenge happen!"
"ah man someone keeps killing my brother efreets after extracting wishes! We need this to stop! Quick lets barter with some poor dirt farmers so we can use our wishes to find them and make revenge happen!"
Is that really the only possible outcome you guys see?
Also, does making enemies suddenly means the GM should break CR guidelines and go down the "An army of undefeatable enemies appears in your face and kills you all" road?
No? Is the GM following CR guidelines and creating challenges/encounters that are appropriate to the character's level? If he is, then who cares? That's what he game is about, you act and deal with the consequences. If the GM is ignoring CR and just saying "Ninja Efreeti come out of nowhere and kill you all", that's no longer a problem with the spell.
That's inda like me using the following sentence...
"Ah man someone keeps stabbing my brother efreets and looting their corpses! We need this to stop! Quick lets barter with some poor dirt farmers so we can use our wishes to find them and make revenge happen!"
...to say Fighters can't function because enemies don't like being stabbed and are likely to seek revenge.
|
|
You mean "uses the rules that are written in the book". The bigger issue is when people come on in with made up handicaps and pretend that those are valid.The are actual legit ways casters can break the game. Sno-cone wish factories, ignoring the RP elements of planar binding, and blood money are not what people should be focusing on. These rules debates are obscuring anything relevant from this thread.I agree. The problem is, every single time a topic like this comes up the thread devolves into people using the most broken possible interpretation of the rules combined with a handful a spells whose limiting factors tend to be ignored.
You mean: use the rules you find convenient for your argument while ignoring or dismissing the rules that place limits on what you can do.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"ah man someone keeps killing my brother efreets after extracting wishes! We need this to stop! Quick lets barter with some poor dirt farmers so we can use our wishes to find them and make revenge happen!"Is that really the only possible outcome you guys see?
Also, does making enemies suddenly means the GM should break CR guidelines and go down the "An army of undefeatable enemies appears in your face and kills you all" road?
No? Is the GM following CR guidelines and creating challenges/encounters that are appropriate to the character's level? If he is, then who cares? That's wha he game is about, you act and deal with the consequences. If the GM is ignoring CR and just saying "Ninja Efreeti come out of nowhere and kill you all", that's no longer a problem with the spell.
No.
It is one of a thousand.
Efreeti are not stupid, highly hierarchical, and near immortal.
CR guidelines are what I use when designing a scenario. If the characters walks into the royal palace and punches the captain of the guard, CR guidelines no longer apply. The character has initiated an action outside the confines of the scenario and will deal with the consequences.
No.
It is one of a thousand.
Efreeti are not stupid, highly hierarchical, and near immortal.
So...?
That doesn't change anything I said.
The fact that you have access means it is on your spell list. Each class has its own spell list and that list is identified in that line. It is a level 1 spell on the magus, sorcerer/wizard, and witch list. Saying it is merely "access" is incorrect.
Quote please. There are no rules that state that a spell being castable by a class means it is on that class' spell list. And the sorcerer class feature specifically says there are spells which are castable by sorcerers but are not on their spell lists.
Sor/Wizard 1 is not merely access, so he is wrong. It is in fact its spell list by class and level.
Source, please. If all spells castable by sorcerers are on the sorcerer spell list;
1. Where does it say that in the actual written rules?2. Why does the sorcerer class feature say they can learn spells from the spell list or from other sources?
This isn't even pedantry; theres a very strong indicator that spells castable by sorcerers but not on sorcerer spell lists are deliberate and intended. That, in combination with language that by RAW means that non-listed splat-book spells are not on spell lists, makes it seem like a not only possible but even preferrable interpretation.
When there are two ways to read a rule, and one
1. requires implied things not written explicitly
2. makes other parts of the rules completely irrelevant and
3. is damaging to the game
then that is probably not the right interpretation.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that you have access means it is on your spell list. Each class has its own spell list and that list is identified in that line. It is a level 1 spell on the magus, sorcerer/wizard, and witch list. Saying it is merely "access" is incorrect.Quote please. There are no rules that state that a spell being castable by a class means it is on that class' spell list. And the sorcerer class feature specifically says there are spells which are castable by sorcerers but are not on their spell lists.
Sor/Wizard 1 is not merely access, so he is wrong. It is in fact its spell list by class and level.Source, please. If all spells castable by sorcerers are on the sorcerer spell list;
1. Where does it say that in the actual written rules?
2. Why does the sorcerer class feature say they can learn spells from the spell list or from other sources?This isn't even pedantry; theres a very strong indicator that spells castable by sorcerers but not on sorcerer spell lists are deliberate and intended. That, in combination with language that by RAW means that non-listed splat-book spells are not on spell lists, makes it seem like a not only possible but even preferrable interpretation.
When there are two ways to read a rule, and one
1. requires implied things not written explicitly
2. makes other parts of the rules completely irrelevant and
3. is damaging to the game
then that is probably not the right interpretation.
Seriously? Wow... I mean... Seriously?
How do you type with your hands so full of straws?
The PRD contains no such limitation and the Plane of Fire is infinite making that a rather low number of inhabitants.
The AP doesn't contain information about what is considered an "unreasonable command" either. Allowing or denying wish factories are both completely up to GM fiat.
RAW wish factories and mook binding are totally something that can happen, so why doesnt every evil country do it?
Probably because the extraplanar creaturws dont like it and have methods to counter abusers.
|
|
More AP fluff?No.
It is one of a thousand.
Efreeti are not stupid, highly hierarchical, and near immortal.
I would suggest you read your Pathfinder Chronicals.
The Great Beyond: A Guide to the Multiverse
Pathfinder Chronicles: Campaign Setting
Both give excellent descriptions of the efreeti hierarchy.
And world descriptions are not entirely fluff. They provide the context within which all games take place. Without a world setting or AP's, Blood Money does not exist, so we can stop referring to that spell as causing imbalance.
RAW wish factories are totally something that can happen, so why doesnt every evil country do it?
Because the game designers never thought of it, or 'pooh-poohed' along the lines of "No gentleman would ever do that!"
Probably because the extraplanar creatures dont like it and have methods to counter abusers.
Hey, it would be really handy if those methods were outlined in the rules, instead of being left up in the air, wouldn't it?