Planar Binding + Gaeas + high CHA = cheap low CHA pet?

[Jacenat]

So because he has some time between chapters 2 and 3 of our RotR AP, our sorcerer (level 7) decided he want to do something funny (I am all for that btw, just want to make it balanced).

1) Magic Circle against evil (scroll he bought)
2) lesser Planar Binding: Shadow Mastiff
3) lesser Gaeas on the Shadow Mastiff ("You have to respond to 50 <arbitrary finite number over 20> questions truthfully. For yes, sit, for now you lay down within 5 seconds.")
4) Compelling the service of "For one year, you must stay at my side and you must attack every creature I designate without interfering with any other creature, including my own."
5) "As reward for this service I promise you many possibilities to hunt and kill in the darkest corners of the world."

Now provided all rolls (to cast the scrolls above his level, to succeed the gaeas and a charisma roll +6 for the creature because of the lousy reward) succeed: Would this creature essentially behave like a pet and complete the service aside from any subverting? He essentially has 7 tries/days to succeed before the Magic Circle dissipates.

I argued that this would be an unreasonable demand because the reward offered is miniscule for the service. I cited Planar Ally (which would value this service at about 300.000 gp ... while the sorcerer can mabye afford another 5.000gp, if at all) for this. The players response was that "There is no reward necessary. This is what the CHA check is for." and technically Planar Binding does argument that, but I feel it goes against the spirit of the spell.

But because I really do not want to shut him down in this quest (this is funny after all), I gave the condition of modified CHA checks. The creature gets additional +1 to his CHA checks for each magnitude you are off from a comparative compensation. So if he only promises that the creature can "hunt and kill in the darkest corners of the world", I would value this as 0 gp (since it's what the creature does anyway). If he throws in 1.000 gp, he can set the modifier to a cumulative +8 for the creature (still possible to succeed).

I already feel this is very generous because

1) I my interpretation the service can not be completed by actions of the creature and thus is considered "open ended".
2) A 6d10 HD creature with a bunch of SUs is clearly to powerful for a level 7 sorcerer to have as permanent pet.
3) He investet "only" ~4.000 in the scrolls, which strikes me as very cheap.

Is my reaction too negative? Am I shutting this down prematurely? Should I not let the creature respond to this service since it's unreasonable? Anything other you want to comment on this?

[Insain Dragoon]

RAW he is right. Of course Paizo wrote TERRIBLE rules for planar binding, so most DMs make it illegal.

RAW an X level sorcery can replace the party very quickly with planar binding abuse.

[Mavael]

Hey you! We had the same idea, I just made this account a few minutes ago to ask for advice.

I'm the Sorcerer in question, I wanted to inquire what constitutes "a service" and what would be considered "open-ended".

I don't want to abuse the spell / suck all the fun out of our game, but since we had some downtime and I had some cash floating around I though I could get a bit creative.

[Jacenat]

Mavael wrote:

Hey you! We had the same idea, I just made this account a few minutes ago to ask for advice.

I'm the Sorcerer in question, I wanted to inquire what constitutes "a service" and what would be considered "open-ended".

I don't want to abuse the spell / suck all the fun out of our game, but since we had some downtime and I had some cash floating around I though I could get a bit creative.

Get out of here :D

[Alleran]

RAW, the player is indeed correct. The planar binding line of spells is a powerful one, and often requires both care and a gentleman's agreement between the user and GM to not use it to shatter the game into tiny pieces. Or just banning it.

Jacenat wrote:

The players response was that "There is no reward necessary. This is what the CHA check is for." and technically Planar Binding does argument that, but I feel it goes against the spirit of the spell.

The "spirit" of Planar Binding is not the same as Planar Ally. The latter involves calling something that agrees with your alignment and paying it for a service. The former involves forcing something against its will into a trap and then outright bullying it until it complies. Nothing stops you from being polite, of course, and you can pay it as you would a Planar Ally, but nothing is forcing you to. It's not for nothing that smacking a bound creature with enervation, bestow curse and various other debuffs while you strap on a moment of prescience is a very easy way to make what you've summoned do as you say.

You don't have to pay the creature you call a single cent if you're not interested in doing so. As to the proposed reward element, hunting and killing many things in dark corners, the ecology of the mastiff:

"Tireless hunters, stealthy trackers, and deadly predators, shadow mastiffs stalk the dark corners of the Outer Planes, preying upon all beings that stray from the light.

[...]

Shadow mastiffs are popular guardians among spellcasters capable of conjuring them via lesser planar ally or lesser planar binding."

The service isn't actually far off from what it would want to do anyway, so what he's basically doing is enabling it (I assume he made a successful Knowledge check to recognise that this is the sort of thing a shadow mastiff would want?). It isn't really interested in treasure (according to other parts of the ecology that I snipped out). Additionally, it's also stupid (INT 4), so it's unlikely to be able to subvert the instructions, or care enough to want to unless it has been prevented from killing for an extended period of time. Similarly, since there's a definitive expiry date (one year), the "cannot complete through own actions" clause doesn't come into things.

And the ecology even points out that they are popular guardians among people capable of conjuring them.

Were it me, I would allow it unless I felt that it would seriously unbalance the party. Do remember that if it uses the Bay attack in combat (and the sorcerer didn't impose clear restrictions on how the hound uses it!), then everybody will be hit by it, both enemies and allies, including the sorcerer himself. It also doesn't have a limited number of uses/day, and it will work until somebody saves against it. And if you're up against undead or anything that's immune to mind-affecting, your players will be affected, and the enemies won't. And the service is to stay by the side of the sorcerer. You could easily rule that it's stupid enough to take that literally, and never leave his side until the service is completed. Could be more than a bit inconvenient for him, no?

[Jacenat]

> You could easily rule that it's stupid enough to take that literally, and never leave his side until the service is completed. Could be more than a bit inconvenient for him, no?

Well the wording would include to attack anything the sorcerer designates and he is fine with having it by his side and possilby be bared entrance to taverns or other locations just because he has a monster by his side that he can't get rid of anymore.

> The service isn't actually far off from what it would want to do anyway

Just because it is used as a servant does not mean it likes to do it. To mee the ecology description seems that it wants to hunt (in pack, if possible) and not travel with a boring ass adventure party that fights every other day.

> The former involves forcing something against its will into a trap and then outright bullying it until it complies.

Well the spell does include

> Impossible demands or unreasonable commands are never agreed to.

I would find one year slavery for basically no compensation quite unreasonable. In a homebrew campaign I would just make sure the story would not conclude within a year and then haunt the player with the creature later on in the campaign. Since we run RotR though and I would prefer to stick roughly with the script, this would not be possible (or at least pretty unlikely).

> I would allow it unless I felt that it would seriously unbalance the party.

That is exactly the problem. We have 5 PCs at level 7. He would basically get a pet for 4000 gp that is strong enough to make him tackle some of the early upcoming encounters alone. I fear the other PCs would feel borderline useless.

[Alleran]

Jacenat wrote:

Well the wording would include to attack anything the sorcerer designates...

And it would hit a conflict if he designates something that is not also by his side, because part of the wording is that it stays at his side.

If he's willing to be barred entrance to civilised areas, then just don't forget that at the table.

Quote:

Just because it is used as a servant does not mean it likes to do it. To mee the ecology description seems that it wants to hunt (in pack, if possible) and not travel with a boring ass adventure party that fights every other day.

Remember that a pack likely won't be hunting 24/7 either.

Quote:

Well the spell does include

> Impossible demands or unreasonable commands are never agreed to.

I would find one year slavery for basically no compensation quite unreasonable.

It's not really unreasonable, to be honest. It's getting compensation because it's doing exactly what it would want to do: kill things. You're forcing it to appear and then demonstrating exactly who's wearing the pants in the relationship you're creating (i.e. who's the alpha of the two-person pack). As long as it's kept happy, it won't attempt to challenge or subvert.

Quote:

That is exactly the problem. We have 5 PCs at level 7. He would basically get a pet for 4000 gp that is strong enough to make him tackle some of the early upcoming encounters alone. I fear the other PCs would feel borderline useless.

It will be rapidly outpaced by the PCs as RotR progresses. It shouldn't be anything more than a speed bump by the end of Book 2 to any of the characters (and they'll also all have Leadership available by then).

[Diego Rossi]

It seem that you have decide to disregard a large crunch of the spell description.

PRD wrote:

If the creature does not break free of the trap, you can keep it bound for as long as you dare. You can attempt to compel the creature to perform a service by describing the service and perhaps offering some sort of reward. You make a Charisma check opposed by the creature's Charisma check. The check is assigned a bonus of +0 to +6 based on the nature of the service and the reward. If the creature wins the opposed check, it refuses service. New offers, bribes, and the like can be made or the old ones reoffered every 24 hours. This process can be repeated until the creature promises to serve, until it breaks free, or until you decide to get rid of it by means of some other spell.

Jacent wrote:

He essentially has 7 tries/days to succeed before the Magic Circle dissipates.

The bolded part say 1 try/day unless you make new offers. That mean increasing the offer, not reducing it. And if you repeat an offer it should be the last offer made.

PRD wrote:

If you assign some open-ended task that the creature cannot complete through its own actions, the spell remains in effect for a maximum of 1 day per caster level, and the creature gains an immediate chance to break free (with the same chance to resist as when it was trapped). Note that a clever recipient can subvert some instructions.

1 day/caster level, so unless the scroll was made at CL 365 the binding will not last a year. It will last a few days.

PRD wrote:

Impossible demands or unreasonable commands are never agreed to. If you ever roll a natural 1 on the Charisma check, the creature breaks free of the spell's effect and can escape or attack you.

1 year of service for no reward fall in the unreasonable command.

Jacent wrote:

3) lesser Gaeas on the Shadow Mastiff ("You have to respond to 50 <arbitrary finite number over 20> questions truthfully. For yes, sit, for now you lay down within 5 seconds.")

I suppose it is an attempt to lower the mastiff characteristics to give it a penalty to his charisma check. If you don't ask questions it will not break the geas not responding, if you ask them he can give its answer, so I don't se any use for that.

[Mavael]

The task has a set time limit and is not open ended, which means the "1 day per caster level" should not come in to effect.

You say 1 year of service for no reward (what kind of reward would a 4 int predator actually accept/want?) is an "unreasonable command". For me it seems since it comes directly after "Impossible demands" unreasonable is in the same ballpark. Like ordering it to suicide or collect 1 billion gp.

What would be reasonable than? 1 day? 1 week? 1 month? What is the precise amount of time that it turns from reasonable to unreasonable?

I choose they Gaeas simply because I didn't want it to lie to me about accepting the deal. I saw that as an obvious loop hole and Gaeas was my attempt to fix that so the Mastiff couldn't lie about accepting the deal and attacking me right after I break down the protective circle.

[Rikkan]

Jacenat wrote:

That is exactly the problem. We have 5 PCs at level 7. He would basically get a pet for 4000 gp that is strong enough to make him tackle some of the early upcoming encounters alone. I fear the other PCs would feel borderline useless.

If your CR 7 players feel upstaged by a CR 5 monster, you might consider offering your players some advice or giving out some good equipment.

And for 2000 GP they can get a CR 9 Mastodon

So don't really see the huge balance problem.

[Slacker2010]

Mavael wrote:

The task has a set time limit and is not open ended, which means the "1 day per caster level" should not come in to effect.

A task is something it can do right then and there. Your service of one year is the very definition of an open ended task...

Rikkan wrote:

And for 2000 GP they can get a CR 9 Mastodon

And use their move action each round controlling it while making handle animal checks. Thats assuming it has the tricks, or its a full-round action.

[Mavael]

Slacker2010 wrote:

A task is something it can do right then and there. Your service of one year is the very definition of an open ended task...

A few examples

"Guard this treasure chest." - Seems open ended to me because there is no actual way for it to finish guarding the treasure chest.

"Guard this treasure chest for 10 minutes." Is that open ended? After 10 minutes the service is fulfilled, there is a definite end. So I would argue that it's not open ended.

"Guard this treasure chest against the first thief." So the service can be fulfilled, after dispatching the first thief the job is done. I would argue that this is also not open ended. (But what happens if no thief ever shows up?)

Disagree or agree?

If you agree than it's simple a question of quantifying the amount possible, "Guard for 10^10 minutes." or "Guard against 10^10 thiefs."

Right out of the Bestiary 3: "Shadow mastiffs are popular guardians among spell casters capable of conjuring them via lesser planar ally or lesser planar binding"

So it is possible to conjure them up and have them guard something, I would say that means a service is not only limited to "Kill this creature now." In fact the spell seems to be built around the idea of "preparing" something. it's not a in combat spell for sure. So something like "Help me escape this dungeon!" should be legal.

If you disagree maybe you could give me some examples of your own what you would consider a doable service and what would be impossible.

[shadowkras]

Keep in mind the creature's mentality and behavior.
An imp or hellhound might easily accept to be a pet, while others hardly will, specially good extraplanars.

Also "act as my bodyguard" does not turn the creature into your pet, it will pretty much ignore anything else you order them to do that isnt related to keeping you alive. Including, but not limited to, letting you get hurt once in a while to prove a point ("see, you need me more than i need you").

A shadow mastiff is still evil, even with low intelligence, it might even consider not attacking an enemy if he thinks it is too strong for him, or even attack people that arent in combat, just because.

Quote:

4) Compelling the service of "For one year, you must stay at my side and you must attack every creature I designate without interfering with any other creature, including my own."

5) "As reward for this service I promise you many possibilities to hunt and kill in the darkest corners of the world."

See how nowhere in his conditions he told the creature to NOT attack innocent people when bored? He told to not intefere with other ceatures and attack whoever he designates, but havent told it to be a pacifist otherwise.

Keep that in mind when dealing with evil extraplanars.

[Diekssus]

Also vengeance is a b##&! here. It may be intellectually challenged, however he might offer to its next summoner "let me kill that a$$%+$% in his sleep and we'll call it a deal"

Trust me, pissing off outsiders is probably a bad idea unless you can actually control them/beat them.

-

Assuming that you have a party of good/neutral people. You probably don't want to use a contrived means of slavery. Your paladin might also kill you (just not in your sleep). Slavery is considerd bad in most places by most people. You won't make friends, just a lot of enemies.

[Tacticslion]

Slacker2010 wrote:

Rikkan wrote:

And for 2000 GP they can get a CR 9 Mastodon

And use their move action each round controlling it while making handle animal checks. Thats assuming it has the tricks, or its a full-round action.

Oh, no, not a full-round action to gain control over a creature that's our level+2 CR!

The horror! The indescribable horror!

:D

Point being, the shadow mastiff is a four-lower CR than the mastadon, and he's spending twice as much to gain its services.

The wording isn't really the best on the geas, as, frankly, it's a bit abuseable by a GM who really wants to - it works quite well for a table who's GM/player trust is very high and well-founded, or a table who knows and expects GM subversion, but tables in between those might have some problems with said wording, after spending 4k and a lot of effort on a creature that doesn't do what you ask it to.

For my money, though, I'd bind a janni or hound archon, and promise them something like a 5% share of my treasure over-time, friendship, and (in the latter case) the chance to make the world a better place against evil. Later, maybe an Invisible stalker would be even better, though treating it well would be extremely important (in the hopes of changing its negative opinions of flesh-creatures).

Heck, if I could, I'd be all over getting the last as a permanent and loyal friend, going so far as to craft invisible items for it (including rings, amulets, belts, and so on) because 'dat flight and invisibility. :D

But in this specific case, at my table, were it me (important caveats), based on the RAW and RAI and creature type in question, I'd allow it. It doesn't seem like that big a deal, in the end.

[Grollub]

Rikkan wrote:

Jacenat wrote:

That is exactly the problem. We have 5 PCs at level 7. He would basically get a pet for 4000 gp that is strong enough to make him tackle some of the early upcoming encounters alone. I fear the other PCs would feel borderline useless.

If your CR 7 players feel upstaged by a CR 5 monster, you might consider offering your players some advice or giving out some good equipment.

And for 2000 GP they can get a CR 9 Mastodon

So don't really see the huge balance problem.

Initially the hound could be a problem.. but will quickly fall behind the party thru adventures.

The mastodon would be a really funny way to opt-fu around the non-hound issue.. the image of a sorcerer riding a mastodon into combat, and trampling everything is pretty funny.

But I do agree with a few other posts, I would allow this.. but.. I would also take the suggestions of a few people and have the hound "act out" from time to time.. not just a compliant pet, but a dangerous animal you've bound.

( Going on the same line of thinking as everyone else has suggested, with the hound atking random people when bored, Have it howl outside the inn the party goes too freaking everyone out inside. That could be great trolling of the inn, with it howling outside like a hound dog, til the "master" comes back to go hunting. )

[Jacenat]

Rikkan wrote:

If your CR 7 players feel upstaged by a CR 5 monster, you might consider offering your players some advice or giving out some good equipment.

And then what? Having to up the CR of the encounters down the road "just because"? Also this makes for stagnat development into late book3 and early book 4 when they experience a slower power increase.

Rikkan wrote:

And for 2000 GP they can get a CR 9 Mastodon

How is this comparable? The Mastiff acts autonnomously in combat. It can enter every space the PCs can and it has 2 special abilities (one very useful, one only par). The Mastiff does not require any feats or skills to be trained by the PC while the Mastodon is a glorified pack animal in most encounters without such secondary investment.

Diego Rossi wrote:

I suppose it is an attempt to lower the mastiff characteristics to give it a penalty to his charisma check. If you don't ask questions it will not break the geas not responding, if you ask them he can give its answer, so I don't se any use for that.

No. It's a fail safe to prevent the outsider from lying to you about the agreement on the service. If you order it to respond truthfully with the geas and it agrees to your services, you can be sure this agreement is truthfully. It can't lie this way.

Mavael wrote:

"Guard this treasure chest against the first thief." So the service can be fulfilled, after dispatching the first thief the job is done. I would argue that this is also not open ended. (But what happens if no thief ever shows up?)

This task can not be completed solely by the actions of the creature carrying out the task.

"If you assign some open-ended task that the creature cannot complete through its own actions, the spell remains in effect for a maximum of 1 day per caster level, and the creature gains an immediate chance to break free"

The creature can not know at the time of the agreement when and if a thief is every going to show up. So this would not be open ended, but not completable solely by the actions of the creature. I am pretty sure the passage I quoted was meant to reflect this. But with the poor wording, you can interpret virtually anything into it, even services that break the open-ended clause and enslave the creature to it's eventual demise.

If you use this logic, you can learn Abyssal and bind a Bebilith to multiple years of service as soon as you can afford the ~5000 gp and have a reasonably high CHA bonus. It doesn't have any SR, it's will is only marginally better than that of the Mastiff and it has 13 CHA. It's not unreasonable to be able to bind it to you at level 5 or 6. At this stage , the creature would destroy every encounter it would take part in without any difficulty and aprt from it being huge, it would handle identical to the Mastiff.

This is most obviously not intended to be able to do for a character that invests just 5000 gp, a week and one skill point in linguistics. It's completely out of proportion.

This is why I think it's a bad idea to go ahead with the Mastiff, because the only thing changing would me bumping up the difficulty of the encounters and reverting the difficulty once the Mastiff is killed or otherwise removed from the party. The there is a obvious discontinutiy where bosses would actually be weaker than previous enemies. I think this is a very bad idea, and against the sense of progression in the campaign. And since we do play a pre-written campaign, I can only insufficiently react without sacrificing prepared materia, coherency with previous and later event and overal themes of the story.

[Slacker2010]

@Mavael - Well, I just looked up the official definition of "Open ended" and it just has to have a fixed time span. So your year of protection does not technically violate the english. I still think its a violation of the intention.

For any task that could not be completed immediately I would call it open ended. Examples of task that are not open end would be "Kill <insert person's name>". Even if it takes the creature weeks or months, thats not your fault. He could complete the task that day and be freed.

In the case that you want time service I would require you to recast Lesser Geaes every 7 days (your caster level). Probably every 6 days to ensure you can re-enslave him.

EDIT: While I would allow it, I also agree with Grollub and the issues he has put forth.

[Grollub]

Hmm after looking up the mastiff's stats.. the bay effect is a "300' spread" Radius??

I personally envision the sorcerer going into town ( if you let him ),and the hound baying panicking the entire town ( if its a 300' radius ) or at least a very wide section of it. Causing mass panic, and mayhem, ( and headaches for the party ) with people wanting to kill it, or suitable other consequences.

[Rogar Stonebow]

Jacenet. It seems to me that you don't want him to get this creature, and your looking for someone to tell you that you shouldn't allow the sorcerer to get it. I doubt that is going to happen. Your the DM. If you don't want him to have it. Just say so and move on. Let him move on as well to something else that is just as creative.

As a side note, the reward is the sorcerer is offering the shadow mastiff a chance to do what it loves in an environment that it doesn't have normal access to. That is a big reward. Ever seen a dog go to a new place? It hops and runs and sniffs and has a blast. Same thing here.

[Jacenat]

Grollub wrote:

I personally envision the sorcerer going into town ( if you let him ),and the hound baying panicking the entire town ( if its a 300' radius ) or at least a very wide section of it. Causing mass panic, and mayhem, ( and headaches for the party ) with people wanting to kill it, or suitable other consequences.

Which would effectively mean the money he invested is immediately gone since he plans on calling it inside a house in a densely populated area. You can bet your ass the hound would bay immediately and cause a rukkus, but that would effectively only waste the PCs money he invested into the scrolls. The first thing he would say is that it was a DM cop out to take the creature away from him, followed by him siding with the creature and wanting to be killed by the guards so he can roll a new character.

I really want to avoid this secenario as it only furthers metagame agendas. I would like to allow the Mastiff, just not for such little investment. But now that I think of it, It would really not all that bad. If he really want it to serve for a year he essentially locks himself out of social interaction for a year. He won't get rewards and will have much more difficultiy surviving in the wild alone when the party is it's comfy tavern. And since the Mastiff can not be directly controlled, he has no effective way to terminate the agreement early.

Maybe this is a harsh enough consequence.

[Caedwyr]

Grollub wrote:

Hmm after looking up the mastiff's stats.. the bay effect is a "300' spread" Radius??

I personally envision the sorcerer going into town ( if you let him ),and the hound baying panicking the entire town ( if its a 300' radius ) or at least a very wide section of it. Causing mass panic, and mayhem, ( and headaches for the party ) with people wanting to kill it, or suitable other consequences.

300 feet is about 100 paces. Must be a very small town or the sorcerer is taking it to the market on market day.

[Caedwyr]

@Mavael: I would skip trying to do this because your GM doesn't want you to and is actively looking for was to disallow or have it cause problems. I'd suggest for you to avoid using spells as much as possible in the future, especially in any creative way, unless you can get some guidelines from your GM as to what are uses that he won't try to stop/pervert.

[Slacker2010]

Rogar Stonebow wrote:

As a side note, the reward is the sorcerer is offering the shadow mastiff a chance to do what it loves in an environment that it doesn't have normal access to. That is a big reward. Ever seen a dog go to a new place? It hops and runs and sniffs and has a blast. Same thing here.

Except its very conditional, that same dog you take to the dogpark and keep it on a lease while not letting it play with other dogs and exploring...yea they love that.

Quote:

"For one year, you must stay at my side and you must attack every creature I designate without interfering with any other creature, including my own."

[Jacenat]

Rogar Stonebow wrote:

Jacenet. It seems to me that you don't want him to get this creature, and your looking for someone to tell you that you shouldn't allow the sorcerer to get it.

I do want him to have it. What I don't want is the other PCs suffering and play deteriorating because of it. I think it's a great idea and would certainly be fun, just that I think the other PCs would be majorly annoyed if they get feared at least once a day, with the ensuing chaos allerting the wole area and potentially have dire consequences to the other PCs who did invest more into their characters. Also I think others might feel cheated because their investment (while more long term) will leave them behind for the next 5 or more sessions. Some have invested in Belts of Giant strength recently. That's roughly the same investment, but only gives +2 to STR. Sure it's more sustainable as you can invest in more bonus later in the campaign.

But, as mentioned previously. I already resolved in letting things happen. I still think it's a bad idea, but I'll let it surprise me if it's not.

[Jacenat]

Caedwyr wrote:

300 feet is about 100 paces. Must be a very small town or the sorcerer is taking it to the market on market day.

If you know RotR and what happens in book 3 ... well :)

Caedwyr wrote:

or have it cause problems.

Excuse me? The players know that RotR is an essential good vs. evil story. They know they essentially play heroes. How could an evil outsider that can't be directly controlled and traveling with them not cause problems? I would really like to hear that.

[Diekssus]

Caedwyr wrote:

@Mavael: I would skip trying to do this because your GM doesn't want you to and is actively looking for was to disallow or have it cause problems. I'd suggest for you to avoid using spells as much as possible in the future, especially in any creative way, unless you can get some guidelines from your GM as to what are uses that he won't try to stop/pervert.

I wouldn't say that. Many publications that deal with calling outsiders mentions that if you mistreat them, or force them, that bad things tend to happen. For one, I wouldn't (speaking as an intelligent being) be treated like a pet, or have geass placed on me, having my freedom taken from me for a year, etc.

So I rather object to you using the word "pervert" considering at lot of it is actually valid. Next thing you're going to say that he should drop trying to force an efreeti to give him a wish because his gm is just going to pervert that wish, even though that's exactly whats supposed to happen.

[Korthis]

i'd roll a d10 to see who's pet he just stole and bound and then have them come after the party. side quest
edit:
i didn't mean as punishment, have varying outcomes. if they talk it out they return the pet for money invested, if they fight and win the pet sees you as the new master but maybe someone else wants revenge now, if they lose they lose the pet but are left alone to learn a lesson and spread fear of (outsider).

[Dave Justus]

I would allow the spell, but I also consider a attacking who I designate an open ended task, so the binding would only last one day per caster lever. Basically anything that isn't a single discrete task that the creature will either accomplish or die trying (kill that person, fetch me the crown jewels, etc.) falls under the open ended clause. If the maximum on 'guard this treasure' command would be a day per caster lever, then it is nonsensical that 'guard this treasure for 1000 years' would work, adding a duration that is longer than the normal maximum should not be sufficient to change a task from being open ended.

Also, enslaving an evil outsider is dangerous, even ones that are not intelligent are somewhat uncontrollable. Smart ones will of course try to subvert your orders, dumb ones won't do that so much, but they may well not understand your orders, and will act on instinct (which is evil and destructive) when trying to carry them out as best they understand. In the example above, attacking who you designate is fairly straight forward most of the time (although in some cases designating who you want attacked to an INT 4 creature might be more complicated than a free action speech) and the not interfering with any other creature would be fairly problematic for it to understand.

And of course, this is a pretty evil act and anyone who encounters the PC with the bound demon hound at their side is likely to have a very low opinion of that PC. That is when the villagers start going for the torches and pitchforks.

[Jacenat]

Korthis wrote:

i'd roll a d10 to see who's pet he just stole and bound and then have them come after the party. side quest

Derailing the story? Potentially killing of PCs that had no influence on the sorcerers decision to bind the outsider (because that's what would happen)? I could just let them re-roll characters on the spot, no? Would be easier, right?

I am looking for a way to include it in RotR without having to distort CRs grossly to avoid the aforementioned weaker boss than random enemy syndrom. Also I am looking for a way to include it without the other PCs feeling de-valued. I am still looking btw :)

[LazarX]

Jacenat wrote:

I argued that this would be an unreasonable demand because the reward offered is miniscule for the service. I cited Planar Ally (which would value this service at about 300.000 gp ... while the sorcerer can mabye afford another 5.000gp, if at all) for this. The players response was that "There is no reward necessary. This is what the CHA check is for." and technically Planar Binding does argument that, but I feel it goes against the spirit of the spell.

Your player is wrong... The suggested reward is the minimum needed to make the charisma check WITHOUT PENALTY. Other creatures will have other modifiers for the check.

[Korthis]

i was actually finding a way to make it part of the story and not just an annoying speed bump. i figured if the party worked together to save it from its oppressive master or something they would start to see it as a part member. i also tied in a way to just get rid of it out keep it as a future plot hook as well.
i never played rotr and in the game i run when people get creative i just blend it into the story.
edit: i also never understood the idea of derailing. if the point is to play an evolving game with a story that changes based on actions and decisions, short of the pcs purposelyrunning away from quest and hooks, how can it get derailed.it shouldn't have been on rails in the first place...

[andreww]

LazarX wrote:

Your player is wrong... The suggested reward is the minimum needed to make the charisma check WITHOUT PENALTY. Other creatures will have other modifiers for the check.

No it isn't. Planar Binding provides for no penalty to the check, only a bonus based on the nature of service and reward offered. You can offer nothing and still make the check. Similarly you can cast spells to compel service such as Agonize, Charm Monster or Suggestion.

[Rikkan]

Jacenat wrote:

Rikkan wrote:

If your CR 7 players feel upstaged by a CR 5 monster, you might consider offering your players some advice or giving out some good equipment.

And then what? Having to up the CR of the encounters down the road "just because"? Also this makes for stagnat development into late book3 and early book 4 when they experience a slower power increase.

If a CR 5 creature (shadow mastiff) can tackle encounters on its own created to challenge 5 CR 7 creatures (your players), then it might indeed be better to up the CR of the encounters somewhat.

[TPark]

I would also point out that the implied definition of "open-ended" is one day per caster level. The spell doesn't specifically say so, but by putting in a time limit at all it is implied. Why should "stay here and guard the treasure until at least two creatures have attempted to steal it" be more onerous than "stay here for 10,000 years and a day". Just because one specified a time period and the other didn't? That doesn't make sense.
I'd allow it, but the maximum time of service (without recasting) is one day per caster level.

[Jacenat]

Rikkan wrote:

Jacenat wrote:

Rikkan wrote:

If your CR 7 players feel upstaged by a CR 5 monster, you might consider offering your players some advice or giving out some good equipment.

And then what? Having to up the CR of the encounters down the road "just because"? Also this makes for stagnat development into late book3 and early book 4 when they experience a slower power increase.

If a CR 5 creature (shadow mastiff) can tackle encounters on its own created to challenge 5 CR 7 creatures (your players), then it might indeed be better to up the CR of the encounters somewhat.

I did not say "on it's own". But another creature ads another turn for the Party and another threathing range to flank against. With currently 5 PCs and 1 pet (ranger - wolf), this would up to 5+2. This tips the action economy grossly in the favor of the players in most encounters.

Compare that with a party of 3 with no pets (but should tackle most encounters similarly well) and you see that this needs adjustment or it will turn into a cakewalk.

[Mavael]

Diekssus wrote:

Many publications that deal with calling outsiders mentions that if you mistreat them, or force them, that bad things tend to happen. For one, I wouldn't (speaking as an intelligent being) be treated like a pet, or have geass placed on me, having my freedom taken from me for a year

I'm sure the Shadow Mastiff wouldn't be happy that some Sorcerer is trying to basically enslave it for a full year, but that's what the Charisma modifier is for (I could understand a full +6). On the other hand he just has 4 Int and is a predator, he hunts, stalks and kills. That's what he does. I'm offering him a chance to do exactly that in a new environment, doing what he likes. I'm not making him carry my bags around, I'm taking him on a big awesome hunt.

I know the spell can be abused, but that's not what I'm doing, at least I think I'm not.

Dave Justus wrote:

If the maximum on 'guard this treasure' command would be a day per caster lever, then it is nonsensical that 'guard this treasure for 1000 years' would work, adding a duration that is longer than the normal maximum should not be sufficient to change a task from being open ended.

Would that also mean that tasks that take longer than the possible 1day/CL are out of the question? What about "Travel to the other side of the continent by walking". That is a singular task, which is going to take months. If the limitations on the service where this harsh I feel that it should have been included in to the wording of the spell. Setting a time limit to a task makes it per definition of the words not "open-ended".

Maybe we can get a answer as to what services are considered legal and what services are not considered legal with some authority behind it? I would hate doing something not supported by the rules and I can't find anything definitive on it.

[LazarX]

Mavael wrote:

Maybe we can get a answer as to what services are considered legal and what services are not considered legal with some authority behind it? I would hate doing something not supported by the rules and I can't find anything definitive on it.

The only authority you need to worry about is your DM.

If you ARE the DM, then you really only answer to yourself.

[tezkat]

First time newbie with a question, Can he use his baying without hitting the summoner thus violating #4 when within a hundred paces? as casting a fear effect on the party would be interfering. Or can it pick and choose targets?

[Aspasia de Malagant]

I think folks are missing the part in the spell description that limits the spell to 1 day/level that also grants a second save to resist if the task is open-ended.

[Jacenat]

Mavael wrote:

If the limitations on the service where this harsh I feel that it should have been included in to the wording of the spell.

As others have pointed out, the spell is poorly written. It allows for all kinds of logical contradictions depending on the definition of it's limitations. Since it's also powerful, that will probably be the reason why it is banned often in games.

[Jacenat]

Aspasia de Malagant wrote:

I think folks are missing the part in the spell description that limits the spell to 1 day/level that also grants a second save to resist if the task is open-ended.

I think one of the key problems is the very definiton on what is open ended. To my knowledge only Geas and Planar Binding use this term and it does not occur anywhere else in spell descriptions. It is also not defined independently.

[Slacker2010]

Jacenat wrote:

I do want him to have it. What I don't want is the other PCs suffering and play deteriorating because of it.

Let him have it with the caveat that if it's abused or upsets other players it will be removed (by killing or whatever). You have a general idea of how other people what handle it. The most important thing is to have fun. Just look at rule 0.

Quote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

1 day/caster level, so unless the scroll was made at CL 365 the binding will not last a year. It will last a few days.

TPark wrote:

I'd allow it, but the maximum time of service (without recasting) is one day per caster level.

Dave Justus wrote:

I would allow the spell, but I also consider a attacking who I designate an open ended task, so the binding would only last one day per caster level.

Slacker2010 wrote:

I would require you to recast Lesser Geaes every 7 days (your caster level).

[Rogar Stonebow]

I love how if you give a dog a bone, it will eat the whole skeleton.

On a serious note. I would not limit the spell to one day per level. Contrary to what some people make up, that isn't what the spell duration says. However, as a DM I would start the 1 day per level the day the shadow mastiff feels it's master isn't meeting it's needs to hunt. If that is what the master promised.

[shadowkras]

Quote:

I'm offering him a chance to do exactly that in a new environment, doing what he likes. I'm not making him carry my bags around, I'm taking him on a big awesome hunt.

How about sitting idle for days in a town, or camping, or watching you brew potions, or helping villagers. Would a shadow mastiff be okay with all of that?

This whole topic would go another way if you were willing to invest on Leadership for the said pet.

[Mavael]

In the end it doesn't matter what it wants.

I can force it to do what I want with a charisma check. I don't have to offer anything and can force it to do anything short of impossible or unreasonable tasks (like suicide).

[shadowkras]

Yes, you can force it to do anything by winning the charisma check.
But you will have to stay awake 24/7 commanding him against his will if he doesnt like you, including not try to kill you the moment you fail a charisma check against him. I hope you dont piss off your GM.

And i will have to remind you that geas and planar binding are two completely different spell effects on the creature, and their effects shouldnt stack, different durations and effects that the GM will have to keep track and there is really nothing in the planar binding text saying it can last more than 1day/level if the GM wants.

Good luck.

[OldSkoolRPG]

First of all since the terms "open ended" and "unreasonable" and such like are not defined in the rules those are subject to GM interpretation. Note that is GM not player interpretation. The player may argue that his interpretation is different but that doesn't matter. The GM ultimately decides arbitrarily what is acceptable and not.

Not everything that is funny should be allowed in the game if it is too distracting or makes the game focused on one player. A shadow mastiff in RotR at level 7 would probably fall in that category.

The GM should feel perfectly justified in saying no to this request. This is something that I would personally deny outright in my game.

[Mavael]

II don't have to stay awake 24/7. I could just word it in a way that only allows the create to interact with any other entity if I allow it.

If the GM would want to be a huge dick, I'm sure he could screw me over, but he could do that any other way as well.

I don't have to constantly do charisma checks, once I win the charisma check that binds it in to my service it's done. It has to do what I told it to do.

If a single service command isn't enough to create the effect I want I can keep casting geas on it until I get what I want. Later on when I have the spells in my spell book it does not matter at all if it's only 1day/CL since 10~ plus is enough to recast them without effort.

>there is really nothing in the planar binding text saying it can last more than 1day/level if the GM wants.

There is also NOTHING IN THERE that says it CAN'T last longer.

I do not understand all this freaking rules lawyering. If a player is not in direct violation of the rules he should be allowed to do what he wants.

[shadowkras]

Quote:

There is also NOTHING IN THERE that says it CAN'T last longer.

"open-ended task" = 1 day/level.

Quote:

If a player is not in direct violation of the rules he should be allowed to do what he wants.

Here is your mistake on the rules. If the rules dont say you can do something, they you cant do something.

Otherwise, there would be nothing (sans GM) preventing a mage from clapping his hand and exploding the planet, because no rule or spell says he can or cant do that.

Quote:

I don't have to constantly do charisma checks, once I win the charisma check that binds it in to my service it's done. It has to do what I told it to do.

That is your main mistake, you are mixing the effect of the two spells, adding both spells together to obtain a benefit much greater. The planar binding will only bring the creature, the geas makes it obey your instructions (defined when the geas is cast), the planar binding is clear that the creature wont obey unreasonable commands and you are forcing it to with another spell, thats where the planar binding ends and you start commanding it with geas (no more cha checks).

You have to track both effects separatedly.

Impossible demands or unreasonable commands are never agreed to.