Impossible to put permanency on a Item? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Arcanist

2012-12-27, 03:43 AM

I don't remember saying that. In fact I remember saying exactly the opposite. A solar can use its wish ability on its own behalf. It can completely undo any binding setup you've got in place by simply wishing up an AMF to free itself and then you've got a pissed off CR24 angel in your study. Good luck with that.

WHAT!? Lemme quote the relavent section for Gate here for you so I know we're reading the same spell

If you choose to call a kind of creature instead of a known individual you may call either a single creature (of any HD) or several creatures. You can call and control several creatures as long as their HD total does not exceed your caster level.

bolded emphasis :smallsmile:

Dm is being mean, wish cannot make a item more then 15,000 gp worth :(

DM is flat friken wrong here :smallconfused:

A wish can produce any one of the following effects.

Duplicate any wizard or sorcerer spell of 8th level or lower, provided the spell is not of a school prohibited to you.

Duplicate any other spell of 6th level or lower, provided the spell is not of a school prohibited to you.

Duplicate any wizard or sorcerer spell of 7th level or lower even if it’s of a prohibited school.

Duplicate any other spell of 5th level or lower even if it’s of a prohibited school.

Undo the harmful effects of many other spells, such as geas/quest or insanity.

Create a nonmagical item of up to 25,000 gp in value.

Create a magic item, or add to the powers of an existing magic item.

Grant a creature a +1 inherent bonus to an ability score. Two to five wish spells cast in immediate succession can grant a creature a +2 to +5 inherent bonus to an ability score (two wishes for a +2 inherent bonus, three for a +3 inherent bonus, and so on). Inherent bonuses are instantaneous, so they cannot be dispelled. Note: An inherent bonus may not exceed +5 for a single ability score, and inherent bonuses to a particular ability score do not stack, so only the best one applies.

Remove injuries and afflictions. A single wish can aid one creature per caster level, and all subjects are cured of the same kind of affliction. For example, you could heal all the damage you and your companions have taken, or remove all poison effects from everyone in the party, but not do both with the same wish. A wish can never restore the experience point loss from casting a spell or the level or Constitution loss from being raised from the dead.

Revive the dead. A wish can bring a dead creature back to life by duplicating a resurrection spell. A wish can revive a dead creature whose body has been destroyed, but the task takes two wishes, one to recreate the body and another to infuse the body with life again. A wish cannot prevent a character who was brought back to life from losing an experience level.

Transport travelers. A wish can lift one creature per caster level from anywhere on any plane and place those creatures anywhere else on any plane regardless of local conditions. An unwilling target gets a Will save to negate the effect, and spell resistance (if any) applies.

Undo misfortune. A wish can undo a single recent event. The wish forces a reroll of any roll made within the last round (including your last turn). Reality reshapes itself to accommodate the new result. For example, a wish could undo an opponent’s successful save, a foe’s successful critical hit (either the attack roll or the critical roll), a friend’s failed save, and so on. The reroll, however, may be as bad as or worse than the original roll. An unwilling target gets a Will save to negate the effect, and spell resistance (if any) applies.

Atleast have him tell you why this house rule is in place :smallconfused:

Kelb_Panthera

2012-12-27, 03:44 AM

Dm is being mean, wish cannot make a item more then 15,000 gp worth :(

I'd say more cheap than mean. A wish SLA should be worth up to 50,000, IMO. Certainly no less than 25,000, since you can conjure up that much in gold.

Ah well.

silverwolfer

2012-12-27, 03:47 AM

thats why I was hoping for some wierd once in a life time wonderous item in some wierd far away book lol

Andezzar

2012-12-27, 03:50 AM

@the OP: be aware that calling a creature is bringing an NPC into the situation and a DM -may- shoot you down if you try to get a creature to wish-up a custom item for you.Not really:
A controlled creature can be commanded to perform a service for you. Such services fall into two categories: immediate tasks and contractual service. Fighting for you in a single battle or taking any other actions that can be accomplished within 1 round per caster level counts as an immediate task; you need not make any agreement or pay any reward for the creature’s help. The creature departs at the end of the spell.Using an SLA definitely is possible to be done in the allowed time. There is not much a DM can do to prevent that short of banning Gate. Creating a magic item (regardless of worth) is among the safe uses of Wish (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wish.htm).

Oh and only one Wish per day for the solar.

Kelb_Panthera

2012-12-27, 04:01 AM

WHAT!? Lemme quote the relavent section for Gate here for you so I know we're reading the same spell

bolded emphasis :smallsmile:

It goes on to define the conditions of that control.

A controlled creature can be commanded to perform a service for you. Such service falls into two categories; immediate tasks and contractual services. Fighting for you in a single battle or taking any other actions that can be accomplished within 1 round per caster level counts as an immediate task; you need not make any agreement or pay any reward for the creature's help. The creature departs at the end of the spell.
If you choose to exact a longer or more involved form of service from a called creature, you must offer some fair trade in return for that service.

Granting a wish that creates a magic item requires the solar have a thorough understanding of what you want to be created.

This isn't an immediate task because, while the actual using of the SLA only takes a standard action, discussing the item to be created is necessary to the completion of the task and almost certainly will take more than the 1 round per caster level to actually accomplish. It's a contractual service that requires a fair compensation.

It's noteable, however, that "fair compensation" can be accomplished via favor. If you're willing to negotiate with the solar (or any other wish granting creature) you can get that wish and a side-quest out of the same spell; win-win man.

's kind of a moot point now anyway. The OP's DM already shot him down and we've had this discussion.

Arcanist

2012-12-27, 04:12 AM

*snip*

... You're really going to argue that telling a Solar that it would take longer then a round to tell you to grant your wish? You're serious? :smallconfused:

... You do know that talking is a free action right? :smallconfused:

EDIT: Better yet, are you seriously going to sit there and tell me that 17 rounds isn't enough time to tell the Solar what I want and thus makes it a contractual service?

Kelb_Panthera

2012-12-27, 04:22 AM

... You're really going to argue that telling a Solar that it would take longer then a round to tell you to grant your wish? You're serious? :smallconfused:

... You do know that talking is a free action right? :smallconfused:

Talking is a free action, but a round is only 6 seconds. If you can't say it in 6 seconds or less you can't say it all in one round. You can walk around the room, do some calisthenics, file some paperwork, or whatever other task you like at the same time since your actions aren't being used for anything else, but you've still only got somewhere between 1.7 and 3-ish minutes to describe the item.

My argument is that describing the item is part of the task, not the command. The command is simply "grant my wish," or "create an item for me," which it will almost certainly accomplish with its wish ability.

@Arcanist's edited comment: yes.

Remember that xp is a rules construct that you'd have to describe in in-universe terms. There's also the matter of getting the solar to understand the nature of the magic of the permanency spell since magicks don't have standardized names. The solar will certainly recognize the spell you're describing, given his +31 spellcraft mod, but simply saying "I want a magic rod that creates the effect of a permanency spell on command," is insufficient.

Moreover, since such a discussion -is- necessary, if the solar doesn't really want to grant your wish (perhaps he doesn't like the shade of your alignment aura) he only needs to intentionally drag the conversation out to the 2-ish minute mark.

Deophaun

2012-12-27, 04:23 AM

Granting a wish that creates a magic item requires the solar have a thorough understanding of what you want to be created.
::Points at non-magical, ornately decorated rod::
"Enchant this to cast permanancy at highest XP value five times a day."

I can do that in less than five seconds, and I don't get to speak as a free action in real life.

Kelb_Panthera

2012-12-27, 04:33 AM

::Points at non-magical, ornately decorated rod::
"Enchant this to cast permanancy at highest XP value five times a day."

I can do that in less than five seconds, and I don't get to speak as a free action in real life.

"The solar casts suggestion at the rod, while wondering what the hell expy is."

Enchantment refers to the school of magic that screws with people's minds and XP is a rules construct that may or may not have any in-universe terminology. You've just given a command that's impossible to fulfill. Way to spend 1000xp.

Arcanist

2012-12-27, 04:42 AM

Talking is a free action, but a round is only 6 seconds. If you can't say it in 6 seconds or less you can't say it all in one round. You can walk around the room, do some calisthenics, file some paperwork, or whatever other task you like at the same time since your actions aren't being used for anything else, but you've still only got somewhere between 1.7 and 3-ish minutes to describe the item.

A round is indeed 6 seconds, but since talking is a Free action it takes no amount of time meaning that you can perform as many free actions as you please without any repercussions unless noted otherwise.

My argument is that describing the item is part of the task, not the command. The command is simply "grant my wish," or "create an item for me," which it will almost certainly accomplish with its wish ability.

You can say "Make me a ring that can cast Permanency at max XP value at will" in less then 12 seconds (or 2 rounds). Hell, I have 17 rounds to say this so I might make it a pink parrot princess ring while I'm at it :smalltongue:

Remember that xp is a rules construct that you'd have to describe in in-universe terms. There's also the matter of getting the solar to understand the nature of the magic of the permanency spell since magicks don't have standardized names. The solar will certainly recognize the spell you're describing, given his +31 spellcraft mod, but simply saying "I want a magic rod that creates the effect of a permanency spell on command," is insufficient.

You honestly expect any player to know the magical word for a Fireball? When they cast it? Do you make all of your spellcasters speak Latin or Draconic when they cast magic? :smallconfused:

It doesn't really matter in the end since the Solar has constant Comprehend Language and can understand me no matter what I say.

Moreover, since such a discussion -is- necessary, if the solar doesn't really want to grant your wish (perhaps he doesn't like the shade of your alignment aura) he only needs to intentionally drag the conversation out to the 2-ish minute mark.

The Solar doesn't have a saying in the matter. He can hate me for whatever he likes, but in the end? He still has to do what I say. :smalltongue:

::Points at non-magical, ornately decorated rod::
"Enchant this to cast permanancy at highest XP value five times a day."

I can do that in less than five seconds, and I don't get to speak as a free action in real life.

"It doesn't work because the Solar doesn't like the way you smell"

EDIT:

Enchantment refers to the school of magic that screws with people's minds and XP is a rules construct that may or may not have any in-universe terminology. You've just given a command that's impossible to fulfill. Way to spend 1000xp.

Screw it. Tell the Solar to change that Ring into a Ring that grants you unlimited wishes and use it yourself. :smallsigh:

JaronK

2012-12-27, 04:43 AM

Solars have a really high Int. They're not stupid enough to misunderstand that.

Seriously, the problem is creatures with wish as a spell like ability. It's just a broken thing. Personally, I just made Wish have a special rule that the beneficiary of the spell always pays the exp cost, even if it's a spell like ability. Still not perfect, but it helps.

JaronK

Deophaun

2012-12-27, 04:45 AM

"The solar casts suggestion at the rod, while wondering what the hell expy is."

Enchantment refers to the school of magic that screws with people's minds and XP is a rules construct that may or may not have any in-universe terminology. You've just given a command that's impossible to fulfill. Way to spend 1000xp.
Well, we've just determined that in your games wishes will be perverted, or every Solar you gate in will have been lobotomized to negative int modifiers, so naturally wish is a terrible spell in your campaigns. Doesn't actually prove your objection.

Plus, you're inconsistent. You're saying the Solar only understands "enchant" as a game term, but has no idea what "expy" is. With that, the Solar has demonstrated that he knows damn well what I asked for, understands it completely, and is just being difficult. I now kill him and have my Truenamer friend (actually just a high-level Truenamer I scryed out and mindraped until he became my willing Gate battery) call me another one (1000xp? What 1000xp?).

You will also have to tell me, as spell casters would have to deal with this and quantify it, what the concept of XP is called in the game world, that various magic item creators may converse about this predictable and measurable cost.

Killer Angel

2012-12-27, 04:52 AM

Dm is being mean, wish cannot make a item more then 15,000 gp worth :(

DM is flat friken wrong here :smallconfused:

Atleast have him tell you why this house rule is in place :smallconfused:

Arcanist is right, there are no limits on magical objects; at least I can see the reasoning behind setting the limit to 25.000, but 15.000?

That said, wish, as intended (You had to spend XP...), works. But when creatures with wish as SLA enter in the equation, xp are no more a problem.
Another problem in understanding how wish works, is the infamous sentence: "You may try to use a wish to produce greater effects than these, but doing so is dangerous." (followed by the example of the Staff of the Magi).
Many people tend to mix this line with the idea given by the limit of 25.000 gp on nonmagical item, deducing (wrongly) that 25.000 gp is also the limit for magical item, but The Staff is a minor artifact, so it's not a "standard" magical object.

Killer Angel

2012-12-27, 04:59 AM

Well, we've just determined that in your games wishes will be perverted, or every Solar you gate in will have been lobotomized to negative int modifiers, so naturally wish is a terrible spell in your campaigns. Doesn't actually prove your objection.

The gist of Kelb's point is (I think) that the gate-wish-chain thing is always under the supervision of the DM.
There's need for the gate and the free wish? go for it.
Are you trying to break the campaign? The DM will stop you, and even RAW won't serve. Example: yeah, the Solar is compelled to obey you, but once free, he will remember, and if your request pissed him, he will cancel it retroactively with another wish. It isn't against RAW.

Arcanist

2012-12-27, 05:03 AM

The gist of Kelb's point is (I think) that the gate-wish-chain thing is always under the supervision of the DM.
There's need for the gate and the free wish? go for it.
Are you trying to break the campaign? The DM will stop you, and even RAW won't serve. Example: yeah, the Solar is compelled to obey you, but once free, he will remember, and if your request pissed him, he will cancel it retroactively with another wish. It isn't against RAW.

But by that same regard so is ALL Magic in the ballpark of the DM since Mystra and Shar have "Deny (Shadow) Weave" which say "You cast your spells, but they do nothing" :smallconfused:

The idea is in the realm of TO meaning that the DM doesn't exist. It's a thought exercise with little to no intent on doing this in actual game play (seriously, ask anyone if Pun-Pun has ever set foot on a table).

Deophaun

2012-12-27, 05:04 AM

The gist of Kelb's point is (I think) that the gate-wish-chain thing is always under the supervision of the DM.
No, his point was it takes more than the duration of the Gate to make a straight forward request, and he could only argue it by asserting that Solars have a negative to their Int modifier.

If he wanted to say "It's DM discretion," there was zero need to launch into a discussion about the length of rounds.

Killer Angel

2012-12-27, 05:09 AM

The idea is in the realm of TO meaning that the DM doesn't exist. It's a thought exercise with little to no intent on doing this in actual game play.

True, but sometime there's a thin line between TO, and actual suggestions given to people that ask for help in their campaign (Q: "my wizard must defeat a epic lich, help me". A: "Gate a Solar").

(seriously, ask anyone if Pun-Pun has ever set foot on a table).

I saw it once, but was for fun, and that's another story...

No, his point was it takes more than the duration of the Gate to make a straight forward request, and he could only argue it by asserting that Solars have a negative to their Int modifier.

If he wanted to say "It's DM discretion," there was zero need to launch into a discussion about the length of rounds.

hence the "I think". :smallwink:

Arcanist

2012-12-27, 05:19 AM

True, but sometime there's a thin line between TO, and actual suggestions given to people that ask for help in their campaign (Q: "my wizard must defeat a epic lich, help me". A: "Gate a Solar").

The question lacks any detail about the players circumstances. What is he (build)? What tools does he have? How much time does he have before be encounters this Epic Lich? And most importantly, what is the highest level of Divination he has access too?

I rarely see people coming on to the 3.X forum anymore because they know that when they ask "How do I kill N?" the rhetorical answer will be "Drop it's hit points down too -10"

Most of the threads on this subforum are about builds and methods of optimization and RAW discussions about what rules work and what don't. So asking how to kill an Epic Lich is a little vague and leaves very little to work with.

I saw it once, but was for fun, and that's another story...

A Serious use of Pun-Pun :smalltongue:

silverwolfer

2012-12-27, 05:24 AM

Could a wish spell be used to mimic an item being made by someone that has feats to reduce the cost to below my DM's GP Threshhold ?

Kelb_Panthera

2012-12-27, 05:33 AM

A round is indeed 6 seconds, but since talking is a Free action it takes no amount of time meaning that you can perform as many free actions as you please without any repercussions unless noted otherwise.
That's crap and you know it. If you really insist on a precedent, almost every effect that is limited to a single round and allows communication limits you to 25 words or less; see sending, programmed image, etc.

You can say "Make me a ring that can cast Permanency at max XP value at will" in less then 12 seconds (or 2 rounds). Hell, I have 17 rounds to say this so I might make it a pink parrot princess ring while I'm at it :smalltongue: It's too bad xp has no meaning. There may be a defined, in-universe term or set of terms for this idea (there is in my campaigns, due to a custom item) but there's no guarantee that such words even exist, so RAW doesn't mean anything here. While such a description could be as simple as "maximum XP" it could just as easily be a complex, undefined idea that requires at least a few sentences to describe accurately. It's a DM call. Given what's being attempted, I don't really expect many, if indeed any, to rule it the former.

You honestly expect any player to know the magical word for a Fireball? When they cast it? Do you make all of your spellcasters speak Latin or Draconic when they cast magic? :smallconfused: No, of course not. I do expect them to understand it's something longer and more complex than "fireball" though. I also expect them to realize that other characters may describe that same spell as "flame-burst," "exploder," or any of a host of other things in-character.

It doesn't really matter in the end since the Solar has constant Comprehend Language and can understand me no matter what I say. Understanding words and understanding precise meaning aren't necessarily the same thing. That such things as idioms and jargon are automatically understood is an assumption that the spell says nothing about; one way or the other.

The Solar doesn't have a saying in the matter. He can hate me for whatever he likes, but in the end? He still has to do what I say. :smalltongue: This is true, as far as it goes, but the control granted isn't absolute mind-controll. There's no reason to believe that -any- creature under such compulsion wouldn't fight against it in whatever way he could.

The very fact that you must describe the item could get you caught up by the "more involved form of service" clause regardless of how long it takes to actually describe the item. Allowing such a service to count as immediate if it can be done in under the round/level time limit is me being generous and trying not to cut out -all- magic items that might be aquired this way. A more strict DM could very well say that getting any wish, period, is too "involved" to ever count as an immediate service.

Once it's become a contractual service, the creature most certainly -does- get a say. He's the one who has to decide if your offer is acceptable or not.

The fact is that "more involved services" is language that's specifically asking for a judgement call. It's up to the individual gaming group to define.

Screw it. Tell the Solar to change that Ring into a Ring that grants you unlimited wishes and use it yourself. :smallsigh:
Such an item may be RAW legal, but it's -way- beyond what was intended. I'd be utterly shocked were I to learn that more than 1% of all gaming groups would allow such an item. Such an obviously TO item isn't particularly helpful to anyone.

Well, we've just determined that in your games wishes will be perverted, or every Solar you gate in will have been lobotomized to negative int modifiers, so naturally wish is a terrible spell in your campaigns. Doesn't actually prove your objection. Quite the contrary actually. I have no problem with wish. I -do- have a problem with power-gamers trying to get something for nothing, especially when they try to use exploits that were unintentionally baked into the rules. The example permanency item simply wouldn't be within the power of any non-deity to make without actually spending the XP. 50,000gp is the cap for magic items generated by wish SLA in my game.

Plus, you're inconsistent. You're saying the Solar only understands "enchant" as a game term, but has no idea what "expy" is. With that, the Solar has demonstrated that he knows damn well what I asked for, understands it completely, and is just being difficult. I now kill him and have my Truenamer friend (actually just a high-level Truenamer I scryed out and mindraped until he became my willing Gate battery) call me another one (1000xp? What 1000xp?). XP being an abstraction for some form of otherwise undefined personal power is a completely different matter from enchantment being a school of magic both in and out of character. As I mentioned up-post, XP actually does have an in-game definition in my games, which would allow spellcasters to quickly and easily define such things. That's my game, however. There is no such thing by default and it's up to the group to decide if such a thing is true in theirs.

You will also have to tell me, as spell casters would have to deal with this and quantify it, what the concept of XP is called in the game world, that various magic item creators may converse about this predictable and measurable cost.

There's no indication anywhere within the rules that such a thing is "measurable" or "predictable" in-game. It can be, but that doesn't mean it is. Given how very few people in a given game world actually deal in such an esoteric phenomenon, it's not at all unreasonable to assume that there is no such terminology. It's no more unreasonable to assume there is either, but such a lack of definition favors the DM, not the player, in this particular scenario.

Deophaun

2012-12-27, 05:39 AM

There's no indication anywhere within the rules that such a thing is "measurable" or "predictable" in-game.
You mean like on page 132 in the PHB under spellcasting and services, where those crazy wizards are able to assign a cost of 5 gold per XP used as a material component?

Face it, XP is known enough that it can be itemized on an invoice.

Kelb_Panthera

2012-12-27, 05:44 AM

You mean like on page 132 in the PHB under spellcasting and services, where those crazy wizards are able to assign a cost of 5 gold per XP used as a material component?

Face it, XP is known enough that it can be itemized on an invoice.

Or tradition demands extra payment for those spells because they're so draining (assuming you can even find a caster thats willing to part with a piece of himself for gold).

The fact that the exact amount charged has a fixed relation to how much "energy" is expended is as much a function of the designers attempting to maintain consistency and balance within their extremely simplified economy as it is any indication that XP -may- be quantifiable in-game.

Deophaun

2012-12-27, 05:51 AM

Or tradition demands extra payment for those spells (assuming you can even find a caster thats willing to part with a piece of himself for gold).
Except this would be true if you introduced and spread a new spell that required XP as a component, or researched a new application of Permanency. Plus, I believe there are other spells out there that have variable XP costs. So, nice try, but RAW, you're wrong. RAW, casters know about XP costs at a discrete level. If it said "around" 5 gold per XP you'd have an argument.

Arcanist

2012-12-27, 05:59 AM

That's crap and you know it. If you really insist on a precedent, almost every effect that is limited to a single round and allows communication limits you to 25 words or less; see sending, programmed image, etc.

It's crap, but it's also the rules. No real discussion about it. :smallsmile:

It's too bad xp has no meaning. There may be a defined, in-universe term or set of terms for this idea (there is in my campaigns, due to a custom item) but there's no guarantee that such words even exist, so RAW doesn't mean anything here. While such a description could be as simple as "maximum XP" it could just as easily be a complex, undefined idea that requires at least a few sentences to describe accurately. It's a DM call. Given what's being attempted, I don't really expect many, if indeed any, to rule it the former.

If the DM chooses to interpret it at an in game level, the term translates into

I wish for that stick to turn into a scepter that allows me to make the effects of magic permanent, regardless of potency, as many times as I desire.

Guess what I wished for? I wished for that stick to become an unlimited Staff of Permanency that can make any spell (within permanency power) permanent :smalltongue:

No, of course not. I do expect them to understand it's something longer and more complex than "fireball" though. I also expect them to realize that other characters may describe that same spell as "flame-burst," "exploder," or any of a host of other things in-character.

Quite right meaning that we have to think outside the box like you suggested. Wishing for an item with unlimited Fireball becomes...

I wish for a stick that may launch an unlimited supply of Balls of Fire at their maximum power

BAM! An Eternal Wand of Fireball at caster level 10 :smallbiggrin:

Understanding words and understanding precise meaning aren't necessarily the same thing. That such things as idioms and jargon are automatically understood is an assumption that the spell says nothing about; one way or the other.

You're argument is now "The rules say nothing about it, so it's not/is okay" :smallannoyed: ... Really?

This is true, as far as it goes, but the control granted isn't absolute mind-control. There's no reason to believe that -any- creature under such compulsion wouldn't fight against it in whatever way he could.

I never said it was absolute mind-ctrl. It could fight it, be against it, but ultimately? It has to do it. :smallsigh:

The very fact that you must describe the item could get you caught up by the "more involved form of service" clause regardless of how long it takes to actually describe the item. Allowing such a service to count as immediate if it can be done in under the round/level time limit is me being generous and trying not to cut out -all- magic items that might be aquired this way. A more strict DM could very well say that getting any wish, period, is too "involved" to ever count as an immediate service.

How does the Solar get anymore involved into the Wish by me describing it to him? Does the Solar get more involved if I also describe him my dream last night? Or if I read him a bed time story?

Now you are just trying to wiggle and worm your way out of this by channeling crazy dead people (that is a Venture Bros. reference) :smallannoyed:

You can't say I'm wrong about that bit by simple virtue of the fact that "more involved services" is language that's specifically asking for a judgement call. It's up to the individual gaming group to define.

Wondrous, so me telling the Solar anything for that matter would be getting the Solar involved making Gate a worthless spell with DM intervention (like any other spell).

(The judgement call is "Does that work in this world?" in case you're wondering.)

Such an item may be RAW legal, but it's -way- beyond what was intended. I'd be utterly shocked were I to learn that more than 1% of all gaming groups would allow such an item. Such an obviously TO item isn't particularly helpful to anyone.

You'd be shocked that someone managed to jump through all of your hoops to get a really awesome item? :smalltongue:

Quite the contrary actually. I have no problem with wish. I -do- have a problem with power-gamers trying to get something for nothing, especially when they try to use exploits that were unintentionally baked into the rules. The example permanency item simply wouldn't be within the power of any non-deity to make without actually spending the XP. 50,000gp is the cap for magic items generated by wish SLA in my game.

Well heres the problem. Not everyone plays at YOUR game. I can assure you this right here and now, most optimization goes out the window at the Character creation process (Hell, in a PbP I'm playing as a Psion Meditant. No plan. No forethought. Just something I wanna play). Most people just play things that they like. The sheer fact that they optimize it while still trying to be flavorful is just high levels of game play :smallsmile:

For example: My favorite prestige class is the Ultimate Magus. Is it easy to optimize? Hell no. But I like it's flavor :smallsmile:

Kelb_Panthera

2012-12-27, 06:11 AM

Except this would be true if you introduced and spread a new spell that required XP as a component, or researched a new application of Permanency. Plus, I believe there are other spells out there that have variable XP costs. So, nice try, but RAW, you're wrong. RAW, casters know about XP costs at a discrete level. If it said "around" 5 gold per XP you'd have an argument.

Note the parenthetical. That there is -any- spellcaster that's willing to cast a spell with an XP component in your gaming world is an assumption. A price is given so that such a transaction can be fair and balanced within the rules themselves, but those same rules say that a pint of lamp oil costs the exact same amount utterly regardless of where you buy it, that iron's value as a trade good is always 1 silver piece per pound, and that salt is always worth 1/10th its weight in gold.

All of these are utterly absurd in-game and are only true to keep the game running smoothly instead of turning into a game of Accountants and Auditors.

It can't be used as categorical proof that xp is quantifiable in-universe because it's nearly as great an abstraction as the xp system itself. Nevermind the clause at the end of the spellcasting services section that does categorically prove that the whole entry preceeding it is only guidlines and that the final cost for services is up to the individual hedge-wizard (read; the DM).

Got a more credible source for the idea that xp is quantifiable?

Even such things as ambrosia, agony, and soul-gems would go further in making your case, though they don't go far enough either.

Deophaun

2012-12-27, 06:30 AM

All of these are utterly absurd in-game and are only true to keep the game running smoothly instead of turning into a game of Accountants and Auditors.
Yes, RAW can be silly. Doesn't change the fact that RAW is RAW.

Nevermind the clause at the end of the spellcasting services section that does categorically prove that the whole entry preceeding it is only guidlines and that the final cost for services is up to the individual hedge-wizard (read; the DM).
Newsflash: Everything in D&D is only guidelines. Everything is at the DM's discretion. Doesn't change RAW, though.

All that you are doing is hrumphing. That's it. RAW, casters know what XP is and can quantify it. You, as a DM, are free to say otherwise, as you are free to say Fireballs do lightning damage, Cure Light Wounds lets you see invisible creatures, and backpacks sing showtunes. These are not things you base general rules claims on.

Your other requirement that the players themselves need to know the unique vocabulary of a world that exists entirely in your head is, simply, [expletive deleted]. Do you also require your players to draw out the magical diagrams for the spells they wish to copy into their spellbooks? If they don't match your mental image, do they fail? Do they need to tell you the ingredients used in the special ink, too, so you're sure they're using the right stuff? Wouldn't want them using unicorn blood-based inks for those evocation spells, after all, amiright?

animewatcha

2012-12-27, 06:45 AM

Kelb_Panthera

2012-12-27, 06:48 AM

It's crap, but it's also the rules. No real discussion about it. :smallsmile: At some point RAW must give way to reason or we have drown-healing. I think a situation that inherently calls for an RP scene is a good place for that.

If the DM chooses to interpret it at an in game level, the term translates into

Guess what I wished for? I wished for that stick to become an unlimited Staff of Permanency that can make any spell (within permanency power) permanent :smalltongue:Or maybe you get a stick that can render permanent the spell darkvision, regardless of caster level. The whole crux of my argument is that such a simple description is insufficient. It's practically asking for the wish to be twisted since -every- domination type of effect says that a commanded creature need only conform to the letter of the command rather than the spirit of it; including gate.

Quite right meaning that we have to think outside the box like you suggested. Wishing for an item with unlimited Fireball becomes...

BAM! An Eternal Wand of Fireball at caster level 10 :smallbiggrin: Given the 1000xp burn on actually casting gate, the 8400 spent on a candle of invocation, or the necessary hoops to get something else that can produce the effect for you, I don't imagine this would be a problem. A solar might not be the best choice to get this, but some wish granting creature probably wouldn't bat an eyelash at creating such an item just to get away from the backwater berk that called him.

You're argument is now "The rules say nothing about it, so it's not/is okay" :smallannoyed: ... Really?Note that what you've quoted there is in response to tongues. My argument there is that understanding a language isn't understanding a culture. Tongues wouldn't make the expression "shooting the breeze" any clearer to a native spanish speaker than manually translating the words to their literal spanish equivalents. They person hearing it would wonder why in the world you're talking about shooting at wind, rather than understanding that you're talking about discussing inconsequential matters in an informal manner.

I never said it was absolute mind-ctrl. It could fight it, be against it, but ultimately? It has to do it. :smallsigh:It could fight it by twisting the wish if you try to rush it or demanding the most exorbitant reward it can think of if you take the time to describe it in such a manner as to be untwistable. This perpetuated idea that a dominated creature is a mindless puppet for the duration of the dominating effect is an eroneous one.

How does the Solar get anymore involved into the Wish by me describing it to him? Does the Solar get more involved if I also describe him my dream last night? Or if I read him a bed time story? By lawyering up, that's how. Saying "I wish <X> isn't a command. It's a statement. To get what you want you must command the creature either imprudently quickly, or at such length that refusing to engage the creature in discussion will likely lead to him capitalizing on an oversight. Giving him a schematic and commanding him "make the device described here-in" can be circumvented by simply constructing the pieces.

Ultimately, anything less than a civil discussion is just asking for trouble. If it requires discussion, how is it -not- involved.

Now you are just trying to wiggle and worm your way out of this by channeling crazy dead people (that is a Venture Bros. reference) :smallannoyed:No, I'm saying that pretending the DM doesn't exist in a situation that demands a DM is folly of the highest order and that expecting any DM to give you something for nothing "because the RAW says so" when the RAW -does- call for him to make a judgement call through so much ambiguity and the necessity of interacting with an NPC is even dumber.

Wondrous, so me telling the Solar anything for that matter would be getting the Solar involved making Gate a worthless spell with DM intervention (like any other spell). Before I respond, I'd like to apologize for phrasing that in such a needlessly antagonistic manner. I've edited the quoted post to something more neutral.

Here's the thing; most spells work unless the DM says "no." Calling effects, on the other hand, only work if the DM says "yes." There's no ambiguity on getting the solar to fight for you. There's no ambiguity on using gate to get to celestia so you can meet a solar. There -is- ambiguity in trying to get a solar to use one of its open-ended spell-likes, and that ambiguity changes the spell from "unless the DM says no" to "only if the DM says yes."

(The judgement call is "Does that work in this world?" in case you're wondering.)Not so. The judgement call is "How does this work in this particular game."

You'd be shocked that someone managed to jump through all of your hoops to get a really awesome item? :smalltongue:Nah. Pleasantly suprised maybe. :smalltongue: Not that it'd matter for the OP's item, since it's outside of wish's power in my game.

Well heres the problem. Not everyone plays at YOUR game. I can assure you this right here and now, most optimization goes out the window at the Character creation process (Hell, in a PbP I'm playing as a Psion Meditant. No plan. No forethought. Just something I wanna play). Most people just play things that they like. The sheer fact that they optimize it while still trying to be flavorful is just high levels of game play :smallsmile:

For example: My favorite prestige class is the Ultimate Magus. Is it easy to optimize? Hell no. But I like it's flavor :smallsmile:

I'm well aware of this, and that comment was directed at someone else who made (incorrect) assumptions about how I run a game.

I'm not an unreasonable guy, but I think it's a mistake to assume that any ambiguity in the rules automatically favors the player, especially when such an assumption leads to such game-breaking exploits as getting unlimited wishes at level 1.

Kelb_Panthera

2012-12-27, 07:00 AM

Yes, RAW can be silly. Doesn't change the fact that RAW is RAW.

Newsflash: Everything in D&D is only guidelines. Everything is at the DM's discretion. Doesn't change RAW, though.

All that you are doing is hrumphing. That's it. RAW, casters know what XP is and can quantify it. You, as a DM, are free to say otherwise, as you are free to say Fireballs do lightning damage, Cure Light Wounds lets you see invisible creatures, and backpacks sing showtunes. These are not things you base general rules claims on. I can see we're not going to see eye-to-eye on this.

RAW has almost nothing to say about anything in-universe. The little that it does say isn't even explicit. In-universe language and details are the realm of lore (fluff if you prefer.)

Far more importantly, using RAW as anything but a very loose guidline for interactions between characters that don't involve those characters trying to turn each other into smoking heaps of chared meat is doomed to failure from go.

Insisting that RAW is an indicator of fluff on anything to do with such a basic level of economy as 5gp per unit is absurd beyond discussing. You have fun selling salt for 5gp per pound in the desert. I'm going to go play a game that makes sense.

Your other requirement that the players themselves need to know the unique vocabulary of a world that exists entirely in your head is, simply, [expletive deleted]. Do you also require your players to draw out the magical diagrams for the spells they wish to copy into their spellbooks? If they don't match your mental image, do they fail? Do they need to tell you the ingredients used in the special ink, too, so you're sure they're using the right stuff? Wouldn't want them using unicorn blood-based inks for those evocation spells, after all, amiright?

You're making an assumption again. I don't require my players know anything at all about how magic works. That's as absurd as you're implying. I -do- have them acknowledge the divide between the mechanical abstractions that make D&D a game and the lore that makes it a living, breathing game world.

As soon as a PC must interact with an NPC, it's not a rules excersize anymore but a hypothetical game, in which a theoretical player and DM must interact for their respective characters to affect each other.

Arcanist

2012-12-27, 02:56 PM

I noticed that amongst the 'sample wishes' of fireballs and stuff, that they are too general. Too easy for one to be screwed over if going the 'free action' talking. Now, the involved contractual service method of 'describing' ( aka more than one round ) shows the solar or your wish-granter that you may have atleast some kind of brain on you.

Implying that asking for a stick that can shoot out fireballs as many times as I want whenever I want is to difficult for Solar to comprehend is insulting the Solars 23 intelligence. I swear, you guys are trying to invent arguments that are slowly getting more and more ridiculous...

Take the Solar. LG-example since d20 has 'any good'. 'Immediately task/right now' 'Are you sure?' with a semi-firm tone depending upon your alignment versus his. Possibly hinting that maybe you should thinking about the wording of your wish ( seeing as how he has a high Int, Wis, Knowledge, Craft, Diplomacy, AND Sense Motive. )

Since talking is a Free action, I can literally describe to him the item until he knows exactly what I want 100 times and no time would have passed. He can know my Alignment until he is blue in the face, but it won't exactly matter since he is under my control. The sheer fact that you are making things up in that he can do things that I didn't tell him to do (i.e. scan my alignment) tells me that you are running out of things to argue with.

'More involved contractual service talking'. By this time, he has had time to sense your alignment. Sterf like that. If he thinks your competant enough, same alignment, etc. he starts giving sample scenarios ( to its knowledge ) into what may happen upon granting the wish with that exact wording. Allowing you time to possibly 're-word' it per say. If this takes time longer than the binding spell lasts for duration and the solar 'likes you' ( be it same alignment, same cause, business venture opportunity ), the solar may actually choose to stick around longer of it's own free will.

Talking is a free action so I'm not sure how it would take longer then 17 rounds. Now you guys are saying that "It'll only do it if it likes you" when it doesn't have a say in liking you or not and even if it did? You can always Diplomancer it into doing whatever you want.

Seriously, at this point, I think if I wished for the world to be a much better place the Solar would just cast Implosion on me because "People that prosper off of magic make this place worse!" :smallsigh:

No matter the means in which you get wish, you need to treat the usage of a wish as if you were dealing with a genie. As if it will screw you 6 ways of sunday and invent several new ways to do so FOR THE LULZ.

Yes, but your forgetting the Solar is LG where as the Efreeti is LE. Neither of these are Chaotic Evil and won't do anything "FOR THE LULZ". If I hand the Solar a pre-written paper detailing what I want (I shall now refer to the Solar as "Santa") you'd be S.O.L. since reading is no action (inb4 they argue that since it is no action it can't be done).

At some point RAW must give way to reason or we have drown-healing. I think a situation that inherently calls for an RP scene is a good place for that.

RAW is written. Not logical. If you argue that "It can't be done because it is a bad rule" then fine. House rule that talking (and has a 25 word limit) is a swift action or whatever, that is fine, because that is your house rule. :smallsmile:

I've been known to make house rules when the situation demands it, but generally? I try not to talk about them like they are actually rules :smallsmile:

Or maybe you get a stick that can render permanent the spell darkvision, regardless of caster level. The whole crux of my argument is that such a simple description is insufficient. It's practically asking for the wish to be twisted since -every- domination type of effect says that a commanded creature need only conform to the letter of the command rather than the spirit of it; including gate.

"Maybe" he'll also give me a unicorn named Carl? Or He'll introduce me to the love of my life, a Vampire boy named Edward or whatever.

Demand disagrees (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/demand.htm), Dominate person disagrees (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dominatePerson.htm) and control undead disagrees (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/controlUndead.htm).

which the subject does its best to carry out.

within the limits of its abilities.

they understand you

Demand says that it does it's best to do it meaning that it will make you a stick that can cast permanency at will at highest XP. Dominate Person states that it "performs as you desire, within the limits of its abilities." meaning that if I ask it to perform a task it will do it as long as it is within it's power and Control Undead states that the creature understands me and my intent. :smallannoyed:

Given the 1000xp burn on actually casting gate, the 8400 spent on a candle of invocation, or the necessary hoops to get something else that can produce the effect for you, I don't imagine this would be a problem. A solar might not be the best choice to get this, but some wish granting creature probably wouldn't bat an eyelash at creating such an item just to get away from the backwater berk that called him.

... Your first complaint was "Devil's are too smart to get tricked by you!" then it was "Efreeti have friends that will look for them and they are important for handling planar mercantilism" and now "The Solar just doesn't like you." I am now convinced that nothing will actually be reasonable to convince you because you are looking at this from the DM's chair and not from a TO point of view.

Note that what you've quoted there is in response to tongues. My argument there is that understanding a language isn't understanding a culture. Tongues wouldn't make the expression "shooting the breeze" any clearer to a native spanish speaker than manually translating the words to their literal spanish equivalents. They person hearing it would wonder why in the world you're talking about shooting at wind, rather than understanding that you're talking about discussing inconsequential matters in an informal manner.

Alright? So I won't use an idioms to the Solar. My request still stands. Give me a staff that can cast "Perpetuitas" (Permanency in Latin) as many times as I desire at the highest level of power. :smallsigh:

It could fight it by twisting the wish if you try to rush it or demanding the most exorbitant reward it can think of if you take the time to describe it in such a manner as to be untwistable. This perpetuated idea that a dominated creature is a mindless puppet for the duration of the dominating effect is an erroneous one.

To quote the Borg "Resistance is futile" (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dominatePerson.htm) :smalltongue:

By lawyering up, that's how. Saying "I wish <X> isn't a command. It's a statement. To get what you want you must command the creature either imprudently quickly, or at such length that refusing to engage the creature in discussion will likely lead to him capitalizing on an oversight. Giving him a schematic and commanding him "make the device described here-in" can be circumvented by simply constructing the pieces.

Remind me to never higher you as a Carpenter, I might just end up with you cutting wood for me and giving that to me saying that you finished my design :smallconfused:

Giving someone a Schematic and having them "make the device described here" is actually well worded and direct to the point. If the DM seriously just has the Solar give you the parts then he is being childish and fighting tooth and nail just to cheat you out of your Wish. Seriously, if someone casted Wish themselves and asked for the body back so they can resurrect it, would you bring the body back as a Vampire because it wasn't specific enough? :smallconfused:

Ultimately, anything less than a civil discussion is just asking for trouble. If it requires discussion, how is it -not- involved.

It isn't involved because it takes less then 1 round/caster level (17 rounds at minimum) it takes a Free action which represents no time at all and can be performed n number of times (n being as much as you require).

No, I'm saying that pretending the DM doesn't exist in a situation that demands a DM is folly of the highest order and that expecting any DM to give you something for nothing "because the RAW says so" when the RAW -does- call for him to make a judgement call through so much ambiguity and the necessity of interacting with an NPC is even dumber.

By that very logic all TO is the same folly because it requires a DM. You can't answer a what if question with "But it's not/won't" since that voids the entire meaning of the question. This subforum shouldn't exist because it discusses the rules and procedure of 3.X which at the end of the day are subject to the DM's whim. RAW is used because it is impartial. It might support your argument sure, but at the end of the day it doesn't care about your stance or your opinion, it simply is.

Before I respond, I'd like to apologize for phrasing that in such a needlessly antagonistic manner. I've edited the quoted post to something more neutral.

Hey, it's a forum. A little heated arguing is okay every now and again, just don't let it get to ya :smallwink:

Here's the thing; most spells work unless the DM says "no." Calling effects, on the other hand, only work if the DM says "yes." There's no ambiguity on getting the solar to fight for you. There's no ambiguity on using gate to get to celestia so you can meet a solar. There -is- ambiguity in trying to get a solar to use one of its open-ended spell-likes, and that ambiguity changes the spell from "unless the DM says no" to "only if the DM says yes."

Wrong. As written PaO is incapable of truly effecting any object (as the name intended) because it uses Polymorph with it's 15HD limit as a reference point for what you can do. You can turn objects into creatures, but you can't turn creatures into objects without replicating flesh to stone or whatever.

Not so. The judgement call is "How does this work in this particular game."

Regardless, it remains a judgement call.

Nah. Pleasantly suprised maybe. :smalltongue: Not that it'd matter for the OP's item, since it's outside of wish's power in my game.

We're not playing in your game. I'm curious why you keep referencing it. :smallconfused:

I'm well aware of this, and that comment was directed at someone else who made (incorrect) assumptions about how I run a game.

HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT THE ULT. MAGUS IS MY FAVORITE PRESTIGE CLASS!? :smalltongue:

But seriously, Kelb the way you describe your game makes it sound like a power trip where you are behind each and every player telling them what precisely can and can't be done... Not saying that, that is how it is (how would I know that?), just saying that is how it appears to be the way you're describing it.

I'm not an unreasonable guy, but I think it's a mistake to assume that any ambiguity in the rules automatically favors the player, especially when such an assumption leads to such game-breaking exploits as getting unlimited wishes at level 1.

I agree with you. The rules as they are written are kind of crap to say the least, but they are an easy and unchanging documentation for the rules. They might not make sense, hell, I house rule away most of the unlimited wish crap since it breaks the game quite literally in half, but in a forum like this where the question is "does RAW support this?" then I have to say "Yeah, it does". No matter how much I don't like it, that doesn't change the rules... Sure I can offer my fix for it, but that would be me telling someone to play by a house rule they might not agree with. :smallfrown:

Jack_Simth

2012-12-27, 03:14 PM

Arcanist is right, there are no limits on magical objects; at least I can see the reasoning behind setting the limit to 25.000, but 15.000?Check the 3.0 version of Wish. It did have a 15k limit on magic item creation: "Create a valuable item, even a magic item, of up to 15,000 gp in value." (3.0 PHB, page 273; it also didn't have the clause about spending more than the 5K XP when making a magic item, however). Some DM's impose that limit in 3.5, even though it's not there by RAW anymore.

Kelb_Panthera

2012-12-28, 12:13 AM

Implying that asking for a stick that can shoot out fireballs as many times as I want whenever I want is to difficult for Solar to comprehend is insulting the Solars 23 intelligence. I swear, you guys are trying to invent arguments that are slowly getting more and more ridiculous...I'm not implying that the creature can't understand, just that he's not a mindless puppet, which is what you're implying with every reiteration of "he's got no choice." His ability to resist is severly limited, but it's not null.

Since talking is a Free action, I can literally describe to him the item until he knows exactly what I want 100 times and no time would have passed. He can know my Alignment until he is blue in the face, but it won't exactly matter since he is under my control. The sheer fact that you are making things up in that he can do things that I didn't tell him to do (i.e. scan my alignment) tells me that you are running out of things to argue with.Talking being a free action doesn't automatically mean it takes no time. It does mean it takes virtually no effort. While a round is a defined length of time no action is described as taking a particular length of time. For free actions, there's a comment in the RAW about the number and scope of free actions being limited by reason. It's unreasonable to assume that you can give a 10 minute speech in under 6 seconds and therefore it's against RAW to do so.

Talking is a free action so I'm not sure how it would take longer then 17 rounds. Now you guys are saying that "It'll only do it if it likes you" when it doesn't have a say in liking you or not and even if it did? You can always Diplomancer it into doing whatever you want.A free action doesn't necessarily equate to no time. I'm not saying that the creature will automatically try to screw you for any command you give it. I am saying that making unreasonable demands of powerful, intelligent creatures will get a response laced with resentment. If I drag you into an alley and demand your wallet, you'll probably fork it over. If I demand the keys to your house and your address, you'll give me a bogus address and the keys to your storage locker across town from your house. The more unreasonable a request is, the more likely it is that the creature you're making your request to is going to resist. As I said previously, under your control is not equivalent to being your mindles meat puppet.

Seriously, at this point, I think if I wished for the world to be a much better place the Solar would just cast Implosion on me because "People that prosper off of magic make this place worse!" :smallsigh:There's a differnce between prospering off of magic and breaking the game. In a situation that demands a more complex interaction than defeating the enemy in combat the latter -will- be shot down by any reasonable DM.

Yes, but your forgetting the Solar is LG where as the Efreeti is LE. Neither of these are Chaotic Evil and won't do anything "FOR THE LULZ". If I hand the Solar a pre-written paper detailing what I want (I shall now refer to the Solar as "Santa") you'd be S.O.L. since reading is no action (inb4 they argue that since it is no action it can't be done). Reading isn't a free action. It's a move action, at least. It'd fall under the spot, or perhaps the search, skill either of which require at least a move action to perform actively. Even if it were a free action, that still doesn't equate to taking no time at all. As for the Solar's alignment, they're always good, not always LG. If you fail to specify Lawful when you call it, it's just as likely to do something "for the lulz" as any other creature that's not inherently lawful.

RAW is written. Not logical. If you argue that "It can't be done because it is a bad rule" then fine. House rule that talking (and has a 25 word limit) is a swift action or whatever, that is fine, because that is your house rule. :smallsmile:This is fallacy. RAW is not -always- logical. By the same token, it's not always illogical either. You can either make logical deductions where RAW asks for them or you can pretend those parts don't exist. In the latter case, getting any called creature to do something other than fight your enemies can't be discussed because those spells do, in fact, call on the players and DM to make logical deductions. It also means that the RAW concerning free actions is null because the RAW specifically calls for free actions to be limited by reason.

I've been known to make house rules when the situation demands it, but generally? I try not to talk about them like they are actually rules :smallsmile: Which is fine. Everyone does that. The idea that any use of logic automatically equates to a houserule, however, is false. The only houserule I've mentioned in this discussion is the limitation on how much power a wish SLA can produce. The rest of my argument is based in logic being applied to RAW.

"Maybe" he'll also give me a unicorn named Carl? Or He'll introduce me to the love of my life, a Vampire boy named Edward or whatever.The difference between my example and yours is that mine matched the letter of your demand. Darkvision is magic, caster level is a variable of power. My example result is, in fact, a stick that makes magic permanent regardless of the power of tha magic. It's just limited to a specific magic and a specific variable of power. Meeting the letter of the command instead of the spirit.

Demand disagrees (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/demand.htm), Dominate person disagrees (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dominatePerson.htm) and control undead disagrees (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/controlUndead.htm).Demand references suggestion. If the demand is unreasonable or nonsensical due to circumstance, it's ignored.

Dominate X specifies that targets resist commands. It says nothing at all about them performing the tasks given to the best of their ability, only about performing them to the exclusion of any other action. A clever target will subvert any complex instruction by obeying the letter of a command rather than the spirit since there's nothing at all to prevent it.

Control undead only specifies that you can command them and that they don't attack you. It does't say they'll actually obey the commands. If talking takes no time, then command undead just makes them understand your words.

Demand says that it does it's best to do it meaning that it will make you a stick that can cast permanency at will at highest XP. Dominate Person states that it "performs as you desire, within the limits of its abilities." meaning that if I ask it to perform a task it will do it as long as it is within it's power and Control Undead states that the creature understands me and my intent. :smallannoyed: As I described above, these spells can all be construed differently from this interpretation. If intent and logic are meaningless, then two of those spells do almost nothing and dominate can go either way.

... Your first complaint was "Devil's are too smart to get tricked by you!" then it was "Efreeti have friends that will look for them and they are important for handling planar mercantilism" and now "The Solar just doesn't like you." I am now convinced that nothing will actually be reasonable to convince you because you are looking at this from the DM's chair and not from a TO point of view. This isn't a TO exercise. No calling effect can be when you try to get the creature to do somethning other than fight for you, since logic and reason are demanded by those spells' descriptions. TO is only concerned with how the rules explicitly interact with one another. The only thing gate explicitly does is get the creature in front of you and, if applicable, gets him to fight on your behalf. Sidenote: my argument isn't that the solar won't do it because he doesn't like you. No called creature does unless you have an extant relationship with that creature. The argument is that the spell has so much wiggle room that expecting the creature you call to do exactly what you want every time you use it for something other than aquiring a combat minion is absurd; even as a hypothetical TO excersize.

Alright? So I won't use an idioms to the Solar. My request still stands. Give me a staff that can cast "Perpetuitas" (Permanency in Latin) as many times as I desire at the highest level of power. :smallsigh:I already broke this over-simplified request once. No sense repeating myself.

To quote the Borg "Resistance is futile" (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/dominatePerson.htm) :smalltongue: And how many times has the enterprise proved that catch-phrase wrong? :smallbiggrin:

Remind me to never higher you as a Carpenter, I might just end up with you cutting wood for me and giving that to me saying that you finished my design :smallconfused: If you tried to get me to do it for free I just might. Offer me fair compensation for my work, and I'll build you a decent house.

Giving someone a Schematic and having them "make the device described here" is actually well worded and direct to the point. If the DM seriously just has the Solar give you the parts then he is being childish and fighting tooth and nail just to cheat you out of your Wish. Seriously, if someone casted Wish themselves and asked for the body back so they can resurrect it, would you bring the body back as a Vampire because it wasn't specific enough? :smallconfused:Nope. If he's casting it himself he's burning the XP and the spell can take the intent directly from his mind. As long as he's within the spell's power bounds (easily in this example) he gets exactly what he wanted. As I said, my problem's not with wish. It's with people trying to wield RAW against reason and ignoring the parts of the situation that allow RAW to shoot them down.

It isn't involved because it takes less then 1 round/caster level (17 rounds at minimum) it takes a Free action which represents no time at all and can be performed n number of times (n being as much as you require).Taking less than X rounds does't automatically make a task less involved, just shorter. Thats why the spell description says "longer or more involved." Nevermind the fact that free action =/= no time. The very fact that we can argue like this means that there is no definitive RAW on the matter. Reason must enter into the situation and reason -can- say that any form of wish granting is "more involved" than the example immediate task of combat.

By that very logic all TO is the same folly because it requires a DM. You can't answer a what if question with "But it's not/won't" since that voids the entire meaning of the question. This subforum shouldn't exist because it discusses the rules and procedure of 3.X which at the end of the day are subject to the DM's whim. RAW is used because it is impartial. It might support your argument sure, but at the end of the day it doesn't care about your stance or your opinion, it simply is. To a certain extent, TO discussions are pointless because pun-pun was discoverd years ago. The game's already been won. Now we're just killing time.

To your actual point though, RAW is written, but some RAW explicitly or implicitly calls for logic and sound judgement. Any action that calls on these elements of RAW must either be handled with the logic and reason demanded or discarded out of hand for being too open to interpretation. I choose the former because it leads to interesting conversation.

Hey, it's a forum. A little heated arguing is okay every now and again, just don't let it get to ya :smallwink:Nevertheless, I should've been more careful with my phrasing. The anonymity of the internet is no excuse to be rude.

Wrong. As written PaO is incapable of truly effecting any object (as the name intended) because it uses Polymorph with it's 15HD limit as a reference point for what you can do. You can turn objects into creatures, but you can't turn creatures into objects without replicating flesh to stone or whatever. There's an argument to be made that objects have HD based on their size, per the description for animated objects, but I fail to see how that apparently disfunctional spell has anything to do with the topic at hand. It's a case of RAW contradicting expectations and possibly itself, not a case of RAW calling for logic and judgement.

Regardless, it remains a judgement call. A judgement call that RAW demands rather than excludes or contradicts.

We're not playing in your game. I'm curious why you keep referencing it. :smallconfused: Because others keep referencing it. So far I've been accused of being a DM who twist every wish and who *gasp* puts reason above ambiguous and dubious rules exploits. :smallamused: I believe I'm about to be accused of power-tripping.

HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT THE ULT. MAGUS IS MY FAVORITE PRESTIGE CLASS!? :smalltongue:

But seriously, Kelb the way you describe your game makes it sound like a power trip where you are behind each and every player telling them what precisely can and can't be done... Not saying that, that is how it is (how would I know that?), just saying that is how it appears to be the way you're describing it. Then allow me to clarify. I generally let the players do whatever they like. There are a couple of things on my blacklist though. Any version of getting nigh-ulitmate power from a single spell is right out regardless of RAW, thus my houseruled limit on the wish SLA of 50,000gp woth of magic item creation or enhancment. I also don't allow the players to run roughshod over called creatures, but I use valid (if unpopular) interpretations of RAW and lore to do so. The only other big "no" I give them is breaking the economy in general and (a modified) WBL in particular (liquid assets, real-estate property, and single-use expendables don't count.)

I agree with you. The rules as they are written are kind of crap to say the least, but they are an easy and unchanging documentation for the rules. They might not make sense, hell, I house rule away most of the unlimited wish crap since it breaks the game quite literally in half, but in a forum like this where the question is "does RAW support this?" then I have to say "Yeah, it does". No matter how much I don't like it, that doesn't change the rules... Sure I can offer my fix for it, but that would be me telling someone to play by a house rule they might not agree with. Where in the blazes do you get the absurd notion that RAW is easy? :smallconfused: In any case, I haven't broken RAW anywhere except denying a wished up wish item, and I explicitly acknowledged the RAW legality of the trick even then. That a called creature can (and probably will) screw you over for trying to abuse it -is- supported by RAW. It's just a very unpopular interpretation of a point of RAW that's much grayer than average.

animewatcha

2012-12-28, 09:00 PM

Hello, walls of text. Sorry that I didn't read it all. Long day at work.

Basically, stick of unlimited fireballs at maximum power?

That would be Fireball atleast at empower'ed and maximized at 8th level spell slot requiring atleast 15th level wizard for caster level and using the price for use-activated/continuous comes out to 240000. Command word option reduces it to 210000. Translation epic item and given the unlimited mark borderline artifact which is a flat-no via wish spell. Additional metamagic feats added ( to add to the 'maximum power' so it can be more 'maximum power' ) skyrocket it further.

There was also no specification on the unlimited part so it can be unlimited in the sense of 1/day, 1/year, etc.. Unlimited being that it works for unlimited number of days, years, etc.

If you chose a particular stick.. well that particular stick happens to belong to x deity of death or whatever and he/she has come to claim it. Troublesome thing is that x deity has that nasty tendency of death with no saving throw ( especially for folks that touch his/her stuff ) no questions asked. Solar backing the fleeb away from everything despite having already casted immunity to death for the day and is it's saving grace. Ohh and oops. The solar forgot to tell you about that particular stick did he/she? Guess you didn't ask.

So yes, too general means you can be screwed.

TuggyNE

2012-12-28, 10:48 PM

Kelb_Panthera

2012-12-28, 11:47 PM

The fundamental property of wish etc, of course, is that a DM who wants to mess you up will always be able to find some means of doing so, however implausible, however extensive your precautions, and however unfair ("oh, it just so happens to belong to deity Rocks-Fall-You-Die-No-Your-Contingency-Doesn't-Go-Off"). This is not news.

On the other hand, a fair DM should generally give you some means of checking the phrasing of a wish (Spellcraft, perhaps, or asking the Solar what the result will be, or whatever), and will not go out of their way to distort it significantly for safe-list requests. (A TO DM, of course, would neither allow you to double-check the wording nor distort it deliberately at all.)

On the other hand again, having to phrase a wish in in-world terms (without having any kind of player knowledge of the shortcuts wizards would likely invent for this) is going to be a lot more awkward to parse than using ordinary OOC terminology, and a killer DM will capitalize on that to ensure that your attempts at circumlocution automatically fail in all cases; it's therefore reasonable, I'd say, to allow the character to make a skill check of some sort in order to properly convert from OOC terms using their own knowledge of phrasing. (So "caster level" becomes whatever the local wizards call it, "at-will" becomes "usable repeatedly in combat with no limitation" or something of that nature, and so on.) This is, of course, necessary in any case to convert from English to Common (or other languages), so why stop there?

I don't disagree with any of this; particularly given the fact that introducing more rolls of the dice introduce more chances for failure.

..... well....... there is one point I disagree with. I disagree with the very notion of a TO dungeon master. If someone has to make a judgement call, regardless of how anyone thinks that call should be made, then it's not TO anymore but a hypothetical game. It's no longer a matter of "the RAW says you can do <X>" but "The RAW suggests you can do <X>, maybe."

The entire point of theorizing (the T in TO) is to try and find the point where the theory doesn't work so you can come up with a better theory. The theory that you can get called creatures to give you whatever you want just because you called them is rife with holes. The theory that you can get something from a called creature after making a suitable agreement with them is much more probable.

Curmudgeon

2012-12-29, 01:30 AM

A round is indeed 6 seconds, but since talking is a Free action it takes no amount of time meaning that you can perform as many free actions as you please
Where did you get that idea from? Kelb_Panthera already responded, but I'll try to be a bit more polite and RAW-centric on this point. The basic limits on speech are set forth pretty clearly.
Speak

In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn’t your turn. Speaking more than few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action. If you're trying to speak in stereo (or however many voices you'd need, probably a lot) to get around this limit, there's another rule which applies:
Free Action: Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort, and over the span of the round, their impact is so minor that they are considered free. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, the DM puts reasonable limits on what you can really do for free. That rule is what the DM uses to keep you from attempting to pour out hundreds of words in a few seconds: you get one free action for speech if you hit the "few sentences" mark, not more.

The speed at which you can speak intelligibly is certainly an obvious limit on the amount of speech you can accomplish in a turn. The D&D action economy isn't impacted by free actions, which means speech will not cut into other actions during your turn. That still won't let you speak faster than is possible to physically say the words.

Kelb_Panthera

2012-12-29, 01:33 AM

Thank you, Curmudgeon, for citing the rule I brought up earlier and another, more relevant, citation I forgot about.

Btw, am I really coming off as impolite? :smallfrown:

TuggyNE

2012-12-29, 01:38 AM

..... well....... there is one point I disagree with. I disagree with the very notion of a TO dungeon master. If someone has to make a judgement call, regardless of how anyone thinks that call should be made, then it's not TO anymore but a hypothetical game. It's no longer a matter of "the RAW says you can do <X>" but "The RAW suggests you can do <X>, maybe."

In a formal sense, it's impossible to avoid making judgement calls; English cannot be made perfectly unambiguous. (C.f. legal documents and natural language recognition programs.) That's essentially the function of the so-called "TO DM", which could be considered a hyper-effective natural language recognition algorithm that performs the minimal amount of human interpretation possible in order to approximate perfect impartiality.

The entire point of theorizing (the T in TO) is to try and find the point where the theory doesn't work so you can come up with a better theory. The theory that you can get called creatures to give you whatever you want just because you called them is rife with holes. The theory that you can get something from a called creature after making a suitable agreement with them is much more probable.

Really? I thought the point of TO was to explore weird holes in the rules so you could point and laugh, or else have fun piecing together countless bits until you construct a monstrosity that sets a new record. (Actually attempting to correct those holes is generally an afterthought at best.)

Of course, I don't think TO is really the point here*. Rather, the point is a "reasonable DM", or some approximation of that. And I find it a bit curious that fighting is apparently less involved than casting a single SLA to spec.

*To be fair, (calling) probably does need some work, and gate in particular, but I don't think the problems are so much "overly-lenient DMs that don't understand the rules" as "overly-lenient rules". Fortunately, both can be solved to some extent by simultaneously tightening up the language and making the spells less powerful.

Kelb_Panthera

2012-12-29, 01:57 AM

In a formal sense, it's impossible to avoid making judgement calls; English cannot be made perfectly unambiguous. (C.f. legal documents and natural language recognition programs.) That's essentially the function of the so-called "TO DM", which could be considered a hyper-effective natural language recognition algorithm that performs the minimal amount of human interpretation possible in order to approximate perfect impartiality.

Really? I thought the point of TO was to explore weird holes in the rules so you could point and laugh, or else have fun piecing together countless bits until you construct a monstrosity that sets a new record. (Actually attempting to correct those holes is generally an afterthought at best.)

Of course, I don't think TO is really the point here*. Rather, the point is a "reasonable DM", or some approximation of that. And I find it a bit curious that fighting is apparently less involved than casting a single SLA to spec.

*To be fair, (calling) probably does need some work, and gate in particular, but I don't think the problems are so much "overly-lenient DMs that don't understand the rules" as "overly-lenient rules". Fortunately, both can be solved to some extent by simultaneously tightening up the language and making the spells less powerful.

As was previously mentioned, RAW is written, and it's not going to change. Our theories about how RAW works however are, or at least should be, regularly in flux.

As you say, neither english nor any other language can be absolutely unambiguous. However, most of the rules do interact with one another in highly unambiguous manners. If a fighter hits a goblin with a sword, that goblin takes slashing damage based on the particular type of sword and the fighter's strength. It would take some truly absurd linguistic gymnastics to refute the fact that this is what the rules say happens in that situation.

Quite a bit of the RAW is on the same or a very similar level of clarity and that is something to base solid statements about what can and can't be done within the rules.

Calling creatures, and a few other effects, is dramatically less clear particularly in regards to non-combat tasks given to those called creatures. To make a solid statement as though it were fact on such a shaky premise is foolhardy at best. To ignore logic in the face of the fact that there must be an interaction between the caster and the called creature to get it to do -anything- is even moreso.

The RAW says what your character can and can't do within its boundaries. It only suggests what you may be able to get other creatures to do.

Even if you diplomanced the called creature into your fanatic worshiper (which won't work on the solar. Effective immunity to mind-affecting, either through the protective aura or cleric spells) there's still the need to verbally interact with that creature to get him to take action on your behalf.

That interaction is a severe weak-point in any excersize of what you can get the creature to do because it requires the DM to filter that request/command/suggestion through his understanding of that creature's mind-set and understanding -and- base its reaction on the creature's goals and relationship to the PC. To assume that the creature is automatically willing to aid the PC, to do so with no concern for the consequences, and to do so without any expectation of reciprocation of some sort at some point is patently absurd. It's the "TO dungeon master" showing favor to the player; something he's not supposed to do.

Curmudgeon

2012-12-29, 02:24 AM

That's crap and you know it.

Btw, am I really coming off as impolite? :smallfrown:
Draw your own conclusions. :smallwink:

Hirax

2012-12-29, 02:24 AM

Kelb_Panthera

2012-12-29, 02:31 AM

Maybe I'm missing something, but why would the solar be opposed to wishing a magic item into existence? Let's assume we're just wishing for a ring of protection +1, to throw out any possibility that we're going beyond the scope of wish. I don't see why the solar would be any more or less opposed to wishing into existence a giant bar of adamantine or the world's largest ham sandwich. Creating a magic item isn't any more difficult or costly for the solar.

Assuming the caster of gate can correctly convey their request to the solar, of course. I'm not even going to touch that argument. :smallsigh:

My contention isn't that the solar would have a problem with wishing a magic item into existence. It's that it'd have a problem granting a wish for some wizard he'd never met. A problem that'd be exacerbated by the wish being for an epic, custom item. Mortals have shown near limitless capacity to destroy themselves with pointy sticks and this guy wants a magical device of that magnitude? Not without being sure he'll use it responsibly and definitely not without being sure he won't put it to an evil use.

Even just a ring of protection could mean this guy surviving a fight he might not otherwise, and if he's going to go do evil in the world then a solar won't want to help him in any way at all.

That said, the ring of protection isn't something a reasonable DM should want to veto unless this is somehow coming to pass at below 5th-ish level.

Kelb_Panthera

2012-12-29, 02:36 AM

Draw your own conclusions. :smallwink:

Okay, ya got me there. :smallredface:

I'm not saying I was wrong, but I definitely could've phrased it better. Sorry for any offense.

Andezzar

2012-12-29, 02:45 AM

My contention isn't that the solar would have a problem with wishing a magic item into existence. It's that it'd have a problem granting a wish for some wizard he'd never met. A problem that'd be exacerbated by the wish being for an epic, custom item. Mortals have shown near limitless capacity to destroy themselves with pointy sticks and this guy wants a magical device of that magnitude? Not without being sure he'll use it responsibly and definitely not without being sure he won't put it to an evil use.

Even just a ring of protection could mean this guy surviving a fight he might not otherwise, and if he's going to go do evil in the world then a solar won't want to help him in any way at all.
The thing is the solar is commanded to do so. If the solar had any say in the matter I doubt the writers would have used the word command. The only wiggle room the called creature has is with the contractual service and even there only in the amount of payment.

Oh and don't forget explaining what the task is has no time limit (calling a creature is an instantaneous effect), only the execution of the immediate task has a limit of 1 round per caster level.

Hirax

2012-12-29, 02:48 AM

My contention isn't that the solar would have a problem with wishing a magic item into existence. It's that it'd have a problem granting a wish for some wizard he'd never met. A problem that'd be exacerbated by the wish being for an epic, custom item. Mortals have shown near limitless capacity to destroy themselves with pointy sticks and this guy wants a magical device of that magnitude? Not without being sure he'll use it responsibly and definitely not without being sure he won't put it to an evil use.

Even just a ring of protection could mean this guy surviving a fight he might not otherwise, and if he's going to go do evil in the world then a solar won't want to help him in any way at all.

That said, the ring of protection isn't something a reasonable DM should want to veto unless this is somehow coming to pass at below 5th-ish level.

That seems pretty dubious. Forgetting whether this is about creating a magic item or fighting in a battle that's at hand, the ramifications of what you're saying are that someone who can't successfully use the diplomacy skill basically shouldn't use the call function of gate, and I'm just not getting that from my reading of the spell. I do think it's fair to bring that about if they're asking the solar for a scroll of apocalypse from the sky, which is well under even the 3.0 15k limit, but I don't think that's reasonable if they ask for a wand of fireball.

Kelb_Panthera

2012-12-29, 02:50 AM

The thing is the solar is commanded to do so. If the solar had any say in the matter I doubt the writers would have used the word command. The only wiggle room the called creature has is with the contractual service and even there only in the amount of payment.

Oh and don't forget explaining what the task is has no time limit (calling a creature is an instantaneous effect), only the execution of the immediate task has a limit of 1 round per caster level.

You didn't read the thread, did you? I've already addressed these points. Multiple times.

In summary

Commanded =/= mindless meat-puppet.

Command short enough to not count as "involved" == command that is easily subverted by following the letter of the command instead of the spirit.

Andezzar

2012-12-29, 03:24 AM

Command short enough to not count as "involved" == command that is easily subverted by following the letter of the command instead of the spirit.The length or complexity of the command is irrelevant, only the time it takes to execute the command matters:
Fighting for you in a single battle or taking any other actions that can be accomplished within 1 round per caster level counts as an immediate taskThe action(s) the solar would have to perform is one standard action.

The text even further clarifies that the contractual service is defined by the time it takes to perform the service:
If you choose to exact a longer or more involved form of service from a called creature, you must offer some fair trade in return for that service.So the service, not the command, must be longer or more involved than what is accomplishable within 1 round/level to be a contractual service.

You, or whoever said it earlier, are right that the solar is free to use his wish ability to destroy whatever magic item he created as soon as he can use the ability again. So at least the wizard has access to the item for one day.

NichG

2012-12-29, 03:54 AM

I don't know why I'm getting into this argument, but... if we take the task to be the only measure of time, then the control over the Solar is indefinite if no task is requested. However, one could also interpret it that the control and doing the task are one in the same. In this case, 'stay here listening to me and don't kill me' is an implicit request while you're describing the task, so the timer starts immediately. If its not an implicit request, the Solar immediately attacks prompting a command of 'don't kill me!' to which it responds 'done!' and leaves, or a very amusing scene of a wizard trying to avoid the Solar's attacks while describing a magic item he wants.

Andezzar

2012-12-29, 03:56 AM

You could do that but there is no indication in the rules that this should be the case.

Arcanist

2012-12-29, 04:49 AM

Where did you get that idea from? Kelb_Panthera already responded, but I'll try to be a bit more polite and RAW-centric on this point.

I got it from the SRD :smallsmile:

Free actions don’t take any time at all, though there may be limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn.

and a "few" isn't exactly a detailed enough number to actually place a definitive limit in place.

The basic limits on speech are set forth pretty clearly. If you're trying to speak in stereo (or however many voices you'd need, probably a lot) to get around this limit, there's another rule which applies: That rule is what the DM uses to keep you from attempting to pour out hundreds of words in a few seconds: you get one free action for speech if you hit the "few sentences" mark, not more.

"few" is never detailed as a number. How much is a few? 1? 2? 972? Since the rules never accurately detail how many sentences is to many (or too few) meaning that the duration of speech is based around DM's fiat and nothing more at which point this discussion becomes moot.

The speed at which you can speak intelligibly is certainly an obvious limit on the amount of speech you can accomplish in a turn. The D&D action economy isn't impacted by free actions, which means speech will not cut into other actions during your turn. That still won't let you speak faster than is possible to physically say the words.

I'm partially jealous of you for this... You've never experienced the hell of having to listen to a Teenage girl motor mouth her way through a conversation without biting her tongue, stuttering or stammering :smallannoyed:

I like calm and gentle Curmudgeon. Much better then what I'm used to seeing on the forums these day :smallfrown:

Kelb_Panthera

2012-12-29, 05:02 AM

The length or complexity of the command is irrelevant, only the time it takes to execute the command matters:The action(s) the solar would have to perform is one standard action. Talking is a free action, as has been pointed out. Speaking a few short sentences is all that can be done in a single round. It therefore -can- take an arbitrarily large amount of time to describe the wish you want granted.

This is not part of the command. The command is simply, "grant my wish," or "create <item X> for me." In the former case, you must then describe the wish and the timer's ticking since listening to you describe your wish is part of the task of fulfilling it. If you don't take the time to give a careful, detailed account of what you're wishing for the creature can twist it horribly if he feels that granting you the wish as you intended could work against him or his cause in the future. In the latter case he doesn't have to use his wish ability at all, unless you're particularly careful with your phrasing. He can simply setup shop and begin crafting after negotiating terms since the minimum of one 8 hour day involved in crafting a magic item is certainly longer than the 2-3-ish minutes that gate says constitutes an immediate task.

The text even further clarifies that the contractual service is defined by the time it takes to perform the service:So the service, not the command, must be longer or more involved than what is accomplishable within 1 round/level to be a contractual service. Dead wrong. That says a "longer or more involved" task. It does not say that a task that takes less than the given time is automatically an immediate task, but that a task must take less time than that to constitute an immedate task. "More involved" is (likely deliberately) undefined.

You, or whoever said it earlier, are right that the solar is free to use his wish ability to destroy whatever magic item he created as soon as he can use the ability again. So at least the wizard has access to the item for one day.

Assuming the epic celestial creature in front of him doesn't just create it in his own hand and carry it with him back to the upper planes when the spell sends him back.

Hells. The solar can shut this whole idea down by simply adding a racial and alignment restrictions such that the device is only useful to good fiends.

My entire point here is that trying to force a creature to aid you for no reason at all when it has the potential to go against his own goals is something the spell simply cannot do without significant risks.

Nevermind potential backlash. Do you really want an epic creature that can, by RAW (ridiculous as it is), create for himself an item of infinite wishes to use against you upset with you? That seems vaguely...... suicidal.

TuggyNE

2012-12-29, 05:30 AM

Assuming the epic celestial creature in front of him doesn't just create it in his own hand and carry it with him back to the upper planes when the spell sends him back.

Hells. The solar can shut this whole idea down by simply adding a racial and alignment restrictions such that the device is only useful to good fiends.

My entire point here is that trying to force a creature to aid you for no reason at all when it has the potential to go against his own goals is something the spell simply cannot do without significant risks.

Nevermind potential backlash. Do you really want an epic creature that can, by RAW (ridiculous as it is), create for himself an item of infinite wishes to use against you upset with you? That seems vaguely...... suicidal.

At this point, I'm going to reiterate and expand on a previous point with more force. Given this picture of a Solar's attitude (or any other called creature), how is it that getting them to fight for you is so easy and safe? Or would you similarly have a Solar deliberately place blade barriers or fire storms to hit party members as well as enemies?

In contrast, consider this:
Angels can be of any good alignment. Regardless of their alignment, angels never lie, cheat, or steal. They are impeccably honorable in all their dealings and often prove the most trustworthy and diplomatic of all the celestials.

I'm sorry, I'm not seeing it. All angels are not only kinda sorta nice, but impeccably honorable, and that doesn't just go away if you gate them in and ask for an SLA. They may well be annoyed at your intrusion, they may be disturbed by your unknown intentions, but deliberately attempting to confound your efforts by exploiting loopholes in what you've instructed them just doesn't fit. CG, NG, or LG: angels don't fudge their way out of things.

And yes, I can in fact reasonably imagine that extending so far as to apply even when it would evidently harm them, and even when they didn't willingly agree to being called in the first place. It's not merely a pretense of morality/ethics, or an idle aspiration, it's a core part of their makeup.

You may now return to arguing that explaining how to make magic items with wish inevitably takes more than two minutes, or is more involved than combat against a lich Wizard 20.

Andezzar

2012-12-29, 05:51 AM

Talking is a free action, as has been pointed out. Speaking a few short sentences is all that can be done in a single round. It therefore -can- take an arbitrarily large amount of time to describe the wish you want granted.Correct.

This is not part of the command. The command is simply, "grant my wish," or "create <item X> for me."Also true.

In the former case, you must then describe the wish and the timer's ticking since listening to you describe your wish is part of the task of fulfilling it.Prove it. Only the length of the task on the part of the gated creature is restricted. The length of the command/description of the task can be infinite.

If you don't take the time to give a careful, detailed account of what you're wishing for the creature can twist it horribly if he feels that granting you the wish as you intended could work against him or his cause in the future.There is no indication to that in the rules of either Gate or Wish.

Dead wrong. That says a "longer or more involved" task. It does not say that a task that takes less than the given time is automatically an immediate task, but that a task must take less time than that to constitute an immedate task. "More involved" is (likely deliberately) undefined.You are missing the point. The length and involvedness is a property of the task/service (i.e. what the solar has to do) not of the command to do that task or the description of it. If you order the solar to use his wish ability it is an immediate task (as it can be completed with a single standard action), it does not matter how long it takes to describe what you want done. Yes, this can put the solar on hold indefinitely as long as you continue the describe what you want done. This may be a broken ability, but that is just what the rules say.

Assuming the epic celestial creature in front of him doesn't just create it in his own hand and carry it with him back to the upper planes when the spell sends him back.

Hells. The solar can shut this whole idea down by simply adding a racial and alignment restrictions such that the device is only useful to good fiends.Is there any indication in the spell or the creature's description, that a being of pure good will deliberately try to cheat the caller?

My entire point here is that trying to force a creature to aid you for no reason at all when it has the potential to go against his own goals is something the spell simply cannot do without significant risks.

Nevermind potential backlash. Do you really want an epic creature that can, by RAW (ridiculous as it is), create for himself an item of infinite wishes to use against you upset with you? That seems vaguely...... suicidal.Whether this is a good idea, has never been the question. The rules clearly state though that the time and involvedness limit is only on the actions the gated creature has to take to fulfill the orders, not on the issuing of the orders.

You may now return to arguing that explaining how to make magic items with wish inevitably takes more than two minutes, or is more involved than combat against a lich Wizard 20.Not to forget that it seems to be less safe than gating the solar in to fight a baelnorn wizard 20 or other forces of good in his opinion.

Kelb_Panthera

2012-12-29, 06:07 AM

Kelb_Panthera

2012-12-29, 06:34 AM

Correct.

Also true.

Prove it. Only the length of the task on the part of the gated creature is restricted. The length of the command/description of the task can be infinite. The length of the command can indeed be infinite. As long as you can talk in a run-on sentence forever. Listening to the caster describe his wish is part of fulfilling the wish, not part of the command. The command is simply "grant my wish." If I really wanted to be a d-bag about it, I could point out that "grant my wish" isn't even fool-proof phrasing to get the creature to use his wish SLA. If you careless phrase it as "give me <item description>" he can consture it as being sent on a fetch quest and you're automatically in contractual service. In any case, since I can't prove that listening is part of the task and you can't prove that it isn't (RAW is silent on the matter) we can only agree to disagree on this point. I -can- say that my interpretation isn't voided anywhere in the RAW and as such is something that -can- be true.

There is no indication to that in the rules of either Gate or Wish. Wish twisting is a staple of not only fiction and mythology in general, but of D&D in-particular.

If you want a precedent for subverting commands, how about the closest analogous spell; planar binding. that spell specifically points out that a clever thrall can subvert poorly phrased instructions. Even if this precedent wasn't extant, there are plenty more in various other spells that compel creatures to action, noting that such creatures typically resist such effects however they can. It's also one of the oldest tropes attached to compulsory magic. Commands that must be given verbally are subject to being misconstrued, accidently or deliberately. This shouldn't even need to be said, much less written into the description of every spell that compels a creature to action.

You are missing the point. The length and involvedness is a property of the task/service (i.e. what the solar has to do) not of the command to do that task or the description of it. If you order the solar to use his wish ability it is an immediate task (as it can be completed with a single standard action), it does not matter how long it takes to describe what you want done. Yes, this can put the solar on hold indefinitely as long as you continue the describe what you want done. This may be a broken ability, but that is just what the rules say.Only if you take as a granted fact that carefully listening is non-action and not part of the fulfilling of the task. I do not. Deliberately trying to listen to something is a move-action, per the description for the listen skill. Unless of course you're comfortable with the creature not listening to your carefully phrased description and just approximating what you've spent the last while saying. Unless of course you kept it short and to the point (and imminently twistable).

Is there any indication in the spell or the creature's description, that a being of pure good will deliberately try to cheat the caller?As I described in my previous comment, to cheat you have to have agreed upon rules to violate. Unless you can point to a ruleset that says the creature must give the caster exactly what he wants, choosing not to do so isn't cheating. Far more importantly, the notion of cheating is predicated on the notion of fair-play. What about this situation is fair to the solar?

Whether this is a good idea, has never been the question. The rules clearly state though that the time and involvedness limit is only on the actions the gated creature has to take to fulfill the orders, not on the issuing of the orders. Which returns us to our disagreement on where the line between the order ends and the fulfilling of it begins.

Not to forget that it seems to be less safe than gating the solar in to fight a baelnorn wizard 20 or other forces of good in his opinion.

None of the twists and turns I've suggested to impede this excersize put the caster in any immediate jeopardy. He doesn't get what he wants, but all he's lost is time and maybe some cash and/or XP. Unless of course he does something that makes the solar feel that retribution is justified. Then, and only then, does this excesize become dangerous, rather than merely frustrating.

Arcanist

2012-12-29, 06:38 AM

Honorable is a completely subjective matter. IMO, there's more honor in standing up for your dignity by using cunning to subvert the casters commands to confound him than in simply quitely giving in to his demands.

So using trickery to resolve your problems... So bending the rules to obtain precisely what you desire... Interesting

Cheating is violating the rules. The rules have to be defined before you can violate them. Confounding and denying the guy who freakin' kidnapped you isn't cheating. It's resisting a captor, which is to be expected.

Awesome, so that means I can totally use a shotgun on a guy coming at me with his mitts "I'm sorry Mr. Police man, but he agreed to fight me without defining any clear rules meaning shooting him was perfectly reasonable" :smallamused:

Lying is telling a deliberate falsehood. A "lie of omission" isn't a lie at all, but a deceit. I find the idea that any creature that's as intelligent as a solar is incapable of deceit to be a ludicrous one. I have no problem with them refusing to tell deliberate falsehoods but I simply can't buy that they never, ever use misdirection of any kind. That's not good, it's stupid.

A deception is a dishonorable act. It's not stupid, it's actual honor. A nice example of this would be a Samurai that has killed himself upon request from there lord. Is he Honorable for listening to his Lord? Or Stupid for listening to his Lord?

The only point in that description that you've got a solid point on is stealing. Even then taking the device back to the upper planes can be rationalized as not stealing, but simply asking the caster to earn the device after trying to steal the effect of a 1/day SLA. It's a test of valor, not a theft. Naturally the celestial would have to send word to the caster on the terms of this test, but it still amounts to cutting a deal in exchange for previously rendered services. Back-pay, if you will.

Yes and me killing the Solar can be considered an act of self-defense, I'm not exactly sure what you were trying to prove here :smallconfused:

As for granting a wish being more involved than combat. That's easy. Killing something takes very little thought.

You've obviously never tried to kill someone :smallconfused:

It doesn't require that you be particular in how you do it, as long as the other guy is dead at the end. The creature doesn't even have to succeed at combat. Failure, not death but failure, means a free trip home or a negotiation for fees, since it's clearly going to take more than 1rnd/CL.

Would I really be anymore involved with the Solar if I told it to kill a guy with it's wish then I would be if I told it to use that very same wish for something else? :smalltongue:

minor nitpick- Using Gate to summon a creature is a Calling effect (weird I know?) meaning that if the Solar dies while fighting it's just dead. It doesn't get to evaporate into it's Plane of ponies and talking lions :smalltongue:

Besides, who says its the called creature that decides what's "more involved." Maybe when the magic checks the "more invovled yes/no" tag combat is automatically marked no. The gods know it's easier to incite creatures to violence than to more constructive endeavors.

Yes, but requesting a single action is marked as an immediate task (and anything that can be performed in 1round/CL). I'm confident that you can describe everything to the creature in a little less then 10 rounds, either way I can always extend the Gate spell if I have too for more time :smallsmile:

EDIT: Silly brain, it's 6am... You should be sleeping... Why aren't you sleeping?

Andezzar

2012-12-29, 06:55 AM

Wish twisting is a staple of not only fiction and mythology in general, but of D&D in-particular.

If you want a precedent for subverting commands, how about the closest analogous spell; planar binding. that spell specifically points out that a clever thrall can subvert poorly phrased instructions. Even if this precedent wasn't extant, there are plenty more in various other spells that compel creatures to action, noting that such creatures typically resist such effects however they can.Yes, but if D&D spells are involved there usually is explicit mention of this option. This is obviously lacking on Gate.

This shouldn't even need to be said, much less written into the description of every spell that compels a creature to action.This is your opinion, nothing more. There are several other abilities that allow no loopholes.

Only if you take as a granted fact that carefully listening is non-action. I do not. Deliberately trying to listen to something is a move-action, per the description for the listen skill. Unless of course you're comfortable with the creature not listening to your carefully phrased description and just approximating what you've spent the last while saying. Unless of course you kept it short and to the point (and imminently twistable).If you go that route, why do you restrict that to the creation of magic items as an immediate task and not to aiding in a single combat? The former has no personal cost for the solar whereas the latter has the real possibility of death. Additionally if receiving the command is not part of the spell the whole idea of command is ridiculous. If that is the case the caller is simply talking.

None of the twists and turns I've suggested to impede this excersize put the caster in any immediate jeopardy. He doesn't get what he wants, but all he's lost is time and maybe some cash and/or XP. Unless of course he does something that makes the solar feel that retribution is justified. Then, and only then, does this excesize become dangerous, rather than merely frustrating.My problem is that you make the caller jump though hoops to get something that is easy for the solar, whereas there are no such hoops to get the solar to do something that is dangerous to him and he is morally opposed to.

@Arcanist: you can't extend the spell, if you use it to bring in a creature. Then its duration is instantaneous.

Kelb_Panthera

2012-12-29, 07:07 AM

So using trickery to resolve your problems... So bending the rules to obtain precisely what you desire... Interesting It can be. Honor, like morality, is a social construct that has no meaning outside of the society it's attached to. What constitutes honor is never defined in D&D so we have to fall back on the RL definition for it, a definition that says it's subjective.

Awesome, so that means I can totally use a shotgun on a guy coming at me with his mitts "I'm sorry Mr. Police man, but he agreed to fight me without defining any clear rules meaning shooting him was perfectly reasonable" :smallamused: In certain states under certain circumstances. They're generally refered to as the castle laws or the stand your ground laws.

By accepting citizenship in a nation, you agree to abide by that nation's laws, even if you only accept that citizenship tacitly upon reaching the age of majority. A mortal wizard in greyhawk and an Angel native to Arborea don't belong to the same nation and probably don't belong to the same faith. There's no predetermined set of rules that they must abide by when dealing with one another beyond their own personal codes of behavior, if they have any.

A deception is a dishonorable act. It's not stupid, it's actual honor. A nice example of this would be a Samurai that has killed himself upon request from there lord. Is he Honorable for listening to his Lord? Or Stupid for listening to his Lord?That's a terrible example. It has nothing whatsoever to do with deception. However, Bushido is a defined honor code that the samurai lived and died by. Bushido demands loyalty and obedience to one's master above all other things. The samurai commiting sepuku at his masters order is acting with honor under the honor system to which he has devoted himself.

Deceit isn't inherently dishonorable though. The ancient japanese and chinese made a veritable art out of speaking in deceptive mannerisms and half-truths without actually telling an outright falsehood. For lying to be dishonorable, you have to subscribe to an honor system that actually holds that as one of its values.

Yes and me killing the Solar can be considered an act of self-defense, I'm not exactly sure what you were trying to prove here :smallconfused: I never said the test of valor I proposed was in any way dangerous. Neither have I put forth any but the vaguest of notions that the Solar would want to do the caster harm in any way. My point is that the description I was adressing with these points doesn't actually say much and does almost nothing to refute what I've posited so far.

You've obviously never tried to kill someone :smallconfused:You'd be suprised.

Would I really be anymore involved with the Solar if I told it to kill a guy with it's wish then I would be if I told it to use that very same wish for something else? :smalltongue: Not more involved, but just as. Potentially more if you want to describe in excrutiating detail just how exactly you want the wish to kill him. It'd be a hell of a lot safer just to order the solar to kill him and let the solar figure out how to do it. Given his SLA's it shouldn't be too difficult unless the target is a high-op, high-level caster himself.

minor nitpick- Using Gate to summon a creature is a Calling effect (weird I know?) meaning that if the Solar dies while fighting it's just dead. It doesn't get to evaporate into it's Plane of ponies and talking lions :smalltongue: Which is why I very specifically said defeated, not killed. Failure and death have never been synonymous on such a level as to be completely interchangeable. Especially in a world with ressurection magic, the two terms are almost mutually exclusive.

Yes, but requesting a single action is marked as an immediate task (and anything that can be performed in 1round/CL). I'm confident that you can describe everything to the creature in a little less then 10 rounds, either way I can always extend the Gate spell if I have too for more time :smallsmile:

This still doesn't change the fact that "more involved" is left undefined for the DM to make a ruling on. That single phrase makes getting any creature called to do something other than fight for you (which is called out specifically as an immediate task) a judgement call to be made by the DM.

Also, taking a single action is -not- defined as an immediate task. The spell says that a task that can be completed in the given time frame is an immediate task (with the implicit clause of "unless it's more involved"). Casting contingency is a single action that takes at least 10 minutes and 100 standard actions. It's not an immediate task.

Andezzar

2012-12-29, 07:23 AM

Also, taking a single action is -not- defined as an immediate task. The spell says that a task that can be completed in the given time frame is an immediate task (with the implicit clause of "unless it's more involved").Yes, but taking a single standard action takes less time than a round and much less than 1 round/caster level. The wish spell does not say that formulating an elaborate wish takes more time than the casting time. So yes you could use instructions that would take hours, if you were to speak them out loud, to create a magic item in the time of a standard action.

Casting contingency is a single action that takes at least 10 minutes and 100 standard actions. It's not an immediate task.That has nothing to do with the question.

doko239

2012-12-29, 07:49 AM

Did not read the entire thread, but as I understand it, the central argument is that the Solar would require longer than the ~20 round limit to understand the requirements for the item to be created.

What you're overlooking is that the CASTER has as much time as he/she/it wishes before actually summoning his pet Solar to determine exactly what he wants, and more to the point, the most rigid, explicit and quickest way to convey that information.

Hell, he's probably already got blueprints and schematics for exactly what he wants, he just doesn't want to build it himself. So up comes the Solar, Mr Wizard points to his detailed schematics, says "I want you to make the item I've described on this sheet", and voila.

NichG

2012-12-29, 07:53 AM

Once you've started talking about what a creature's personality is likely to have it do, you've left the realm of TO. RAW doesn't require anything one way or another. This discussion certainly isn't non-TO, since its basically making use of an infinity in the rules (Wish as SLA can make any item without cost, which means one could ask for a item of +infinity to everything/anything, nevermind nigh-infinity). So is this discussion about anything anymore?

In a non-TO world this will not work simply because it shouldn't work for the game to retain any playability, completely regardless of any rules about it. In a TO world, its undecidable because it involves NPC motivations rather than specifically what the rules say. Even if we were to say 'what would it be like in a world ruled by optimal actions', the result is probably that only the demons exist: they can win the action economy as they are infinite in number. And the only thing that matters is the universe-wide number of actions per round that can be fielded, due to the availability of an arbitrary number of infinite-wish items and, for that matter, infinite-Gate items. Most likely all viable targets would be Gate-locked (since under this argument, the period of control is indefinite), except the demons, who win on account of being unable to run out of members.

Arcanist

2012-12-29, 07:57 AM

It can be. Honor, like morality, is a social construct that has no meaning outside of the society it's attached to. What constitutes honor is never defined in D&D so we have to fall back on the RL definition for it, a definition that says it's subjective.

The social structure that the Solar is from is all about being the Paragon of Good (and Law if he's from that part of the Heavens). Good people don't deceive people because relying on a deception matter as well be admitting that the "right" way isn't the best way. It's kind of like a Paladin of Honor having an Undead Army that marches around killing bad guys. Sure it gets the job done, but he had to resort to an evil act to accomplish the job. A better example would be if Batman ran around with an Ak-14 killing villains (Ignoring Frank Miller's work), Batman would never do such a thing, because it goes against everything he stands for.

In certain states under certain circumstances. They're generally refered to as the castle laws or the stand your ground laws.

I'm a colored man (not going to say which color) and I am quite familiar with that law seeing as how every time I go down South to visit my friend, the locals always feel the need to talk about it when I am eating my French Toast, Eggs and Bacon at the Cracker Barrel, but that is a tale for another day :smallannoyed:

By accepting citizenship in a nation, you agree to abide by that nation's laws, even if you only accept that citizenship tacitly upon reaching the age of majority. A mortal wizard in greyhawk and an Angel native to Arborea don't belong to the same nation and probably don't belong to the same faith. There's no predetermined set of rules that they must abide by when dealing with one another beyond their own personal codes of behavior, if they have any.

Actually it doesn't just extend to Citizenship. It extents to visitation as well which explains why if you perform a Crime in a foreign nation (hope to god it's a America) you can still be arrested and charged. Also, if you perform a crime there and later flee the country you can be extradited back to be tried. The only predetermined set rules are those dictated by the spell (Gate in question) which grants you control over the subject, which you've stated time and time again that in your opinion it isn't meat puppet Mind Control.

That's a terrible example. It has nothing whatsoever to do with deception. However, Bushido is a defined honor code that the samurai lived and died by. Bushido demands loyalty and obedience to one's master above all other things. The samurai commiting sepuku at his masters order is acting with honor under the honor system to which he has devoted himself.

The point remains. Is the Solar stupid for following his honor as being a paragon of good (and potentially Lawful Good)? or is he honorable for using Lawful Evil (or at least Chaotic) means to escaping giving a pesky mortal (regardless of alignment) a chance at happiness? or potentially knowledge?

Deceit isn't inherently dishonorable though. The ancient japanese and chinese made a veritable art out of speaking in deceptive mannerisms and half-truths without actually telling an outright falsehood. For lying to be dishonorable, you have to subscribe to an honor system that actually holds that as one of its values.

Asian Cultures have, by modern views, a very skewed views on Honor. For example, for some Honor systems it is forbidden to smoke, but in another it might be a requirement to perform this acts, wherever and whenever possible.

So to compare them to modern views would be very simplistic. Simply put, it was another time.

I never said the test of valor I proposed was in any way dangerous. Neither have I put forth any but the vaguest of notions that the Solar would want to do the caster harm in any way. My point is that the description I was adressing with these points doesn't actually say much and does almost nothing to refute what I've posited so far.

I never said it was dangerous either. The point is, is that the Solar is trying to take something from me that belongs to me (Theft) and thus I am allowed to defend myself using reasonable force (in this case "Stand your ground")

You'd be suprised.

No offense Kelb, but you seem WAY to relaxed and calm to ever want to kill anyone, besides, you generally seem like a good guy to me :smallsmile:

Not more involved, but just as. Potentially more if you want to describe in excrutiating detail just how exactly you want the wish to kill him. It'd be a hell of a lot safer just to order the solar to kill him and let the solar figure out how to do it. Given his SLA's it shouldn't be too difficult unless the target is a high-op, high-level caster himself.

So I would be more involved if I asked him to use his Wish Ability to replicate a Corrupt spell to kill someone for me? Aww that just reaks of a plot :smallamused:

Regardless, I feel that you are setting up boundaries that do not exist using rules that do not exist. As has been proven before XP is an in game mechanic that is known by the inhabitants of the world of D&D and even if it wasn't I can legitimately ask the Solar

I wish for a Scepter that could cast [I'm a Wizard, just assume that he knows that arcane word for Permanency] an infinite number of times as if I had allocated the maximum amount of life force / Magical Force for the creation of this item.

and he would understand me because to cite Netheril: Empire of Magic (a 2nd edition book might I add)

It allowed Netherese arcanists to create magical items without need of a permanency spell and provided the constant magical force that allowed entire mountains to hover in the air. Before this device was created, Netherese arcanists could place only simple dweomers on small objects with limited abilities— at the supreme cost of a mage’s vitality.

Meaning that it can be called anything from Life Force to Magical Force to Vitality to anything in between. The point is, that casters know that when you are making a Magical item, you are required to give up a little bit of your XP or magical force or whatever you wish to call it, in it's production meaning that dating back from 2nd edition Casters have known that, so why is it so much of a stretch for the Solar, with his all might Intelligence of 22 and Spellcraft bonus of +31 to not know this?

Which is why I very specifically said defeated, not killed. Failure and death have never been synonymous on such a level as to be completely interchangeable. Especially in a world with ressurection magic, the two terms are almost mutually exclusive.

It can very well meaning the difference between "I defeated the Lich Xykon" or "I killed the Lich Xykon" :smallconfused:

This still doesn't change the fact that "more involved" is left undefined for the DM to make a ruling on. That single phrase makes getting any creature called to do something other than fight for you (which is called out specifically as an immediate task) a judgement call to be made by the DM.

So is performing an action that takes a single round and wishing for a magical item of infinite Permanency at highest XP value is a game mechanic. If you seriously expect your players to talk in Draconic when talking to a Dragon or Dwarven when your party Dwarf talks to his Momma then you are a crazy thematic DM :smalleek:

Also, taking a single action is -not- defined as an immediate task. The spell says that a task that can be completed in the given time frame is an immediate task (with the implicit clause of "unless it's more involved"). Casting contingency is a single action that takes at least 10 minutes and 100 standard actions. It's not an immediate task.

You're right. I stand corrected. Anything that can be performed within the requisite time (1round/level) is an Immediate task. So your example of having the Solar cast Contingency is well outside of your bounds.

Kelb_Panthera

2012-12-29, 10:48 AM

The social structure that the Solar is from is all about being the Paragon of Good (and Law if he's from that part of the Heavens). Good people don't deceive people because relying on a deception matter as well be admitting that the "right" way isn't the best way. It's kind of like a Paladin of Honor having an Undead Army that marches around killing bad guys. Sure it gets the job done, but he had to resort to an evil act to accomplish the job. A better example would be if Batman ran around with an Ak-14 killing villains (Ignoring Frank Miller's work), Batman would never do such a thing, because it goes against everything he stands for.Batman is a specific person with a specific code of behavior that's very well documented. That has absolutely no bearing on the makeup of a culture or cultures of an infinite plane where good is the basic underlying element of the very ground you walk on and everything on it. As for the culture that solars come from, it's completely undefined beyond "Good." BoED can give us some ideas what that's about, but that's it. Lying and deception aren't evil, so there's absolutely no reason that even such inherently good creatures as celestials can't use them. It seems you're dragging a bit of your own morality into the discussion.

The writers may have had a particular sort of honor in mind (chivalric or something similar most likely) when they wrote the core books, but in failing to define that honor they render any reference to honor meaningless without a cultural reference point. An angel using deception to protect mortals from themselves doesn't strike me as the least bit dishonorable. Nevermind that without deception an angel can never move about the mortal realm in disguise, since that too is a form of deception.

I'm a colored man (not going to say which color) and I am quite familiar with that law seeing as how every time I go down South to visit my friend, the locals always feel the need to talk about it when I am eating my French Toast, Eggs and Bacon at the Cracker Barrel, but that is a tale for another day :smallannoyed:I meant no offense. Just thought I'd point out that the example wasn't necessarily as absurd as it was intended to be.

Actually it doesn't just extend to Citizenship. It extents to visitation as well which explains why if you perform a Crime in a foreign nation (hope to god it's a America) you can still be arrested and charged. Also, if you perform a crime there and later flee the country you can be extradited back to be tried. The only predetermined set rules are those dictated by the spell (Gate in question) which grants you control over the subject, which you've stated time and time again that in your opinion it isn't meat puppet Mind Control. I'm going to leave this one alone, since it's dancing too close to politics even for my daring. Suffice it to say that the motivations for those actions are a result of the interactions between cultures in a world where isolated nations are largely non-existent. I do emphatically say that being under another creature's control -does not- make you a mindless meat-puppet for them to use and abuse as they like.

The point remains. Is the Solar stupid for following his honor as being a paragon of good (and potentially Lawful Good)? or is he honorable for using Lawful Evil (or at least Chaotic) means to escaping giving a pesky mortal (regardless of alignment) a chance at happiness? or potentially knowledge?He's clever for using chaotic means to protect a mortal from power he's not sure that mortal can handle responsibly. There is no dishonor in his deception and he's not cheating because he's working within the boundaries of the situation as best he can. The wizard likely feels much different about this.

Asian Cultures have, by modern views, a very skewed views on Honor. For example, for some Honor systems it is forbidden to smoke, but in another it might be a requirement to perform this acts, wherever and whenever possible.

So to compare them to modern views would be very simplistic. Simply put, it was another time.You're over-simplifying. Those views of what constitutes honor haven't died out. Many people in Asia and many asian expatriates to the west still hold those very ideas that you're dismissing as "skewed" and archaic. Even if they had, the pseudo-medieval world that D&D is supposed to represent is also a different time and a different place. That immortal creatures of the infinite planes all subscribe to the same notions of what is honorable or dishonorable is ludicrous. Absent a solid definition for it within the books, honor is a meaningless word where RAW is concerned.

I never said it was dangerous either. The point is, is that the Solar is trying to take something from me that belongs to me (Theft) and thus I am allowed to defend myself using reasonable force (in this case "Stand your ground")Self-defense is a matter of protecting yourself from harm. Even those stand your ground and castle laws we touched on require that you were reasonably certain you were in some degree of danger. You could, of course, rationalize that killing he angel was an act of self-defense, but doing so is an inherently evil act regardless of motive (it's actually one of the few acts that is always evil regardless of circumstance) and even if it wasn't a celestial claiming self-defense when you were in -no- danger is probably still an evil act.

As for taking the device being theft; is it? The caster put no effort into creating or earning the device, so his ownership of it is certainly contestable depending on how you handle the concept of ownership. It may not actually be "his" until the celestial actually hands it over to him.

No offense Kelb, but you seem WAY to relaxed and calm to ever want to kill anyone, besides, you generally seem like a good guy to me :smallsmile: I thank you for that, and your perception of me is mostly accurate. I do, however, have an extraordinarily violent nature and I'm a berserk. I'm just glad there were people there to break us up. I'm being honest about this because I feel no shame for who I am, even if I am ashamed of losing control that night. Moving on.

So I would be more involved if I asked him to use his Wish Ability to replicate a Corrupt spell to kill someone for me? Aww that just reaks of a plot :smallamused: Just as combat is automatically an immediate task, I can see a DM ruling that getting a wish is always a contractual task based on the "more inolved" clause.

Regardless, I feel that you are setting up boundaries that do not exist using rules that do not exist. As has been proven before XP is an in game mechanic that is known by the inhabitants of the world of D&D and even if it wasn't I can legitimately ask the SolarIt's been possited but not proven. Xp is an abstraction that represents something that the inhabitants of the game world are aware of, but the only thing that suggests it's quantifiable is the equally abstract economic system. Two abstractions interacting do very little to convicnce one of the validity of that idea.

I -am- gleefully mixing crunch with fluff though. The excersize at hand calls for that very thing by requiring the caster to speak to another creature. It requires an RP interaction which, in-turn, calls on the fluff for the creature. The only way to eliminate fluff from this situation is to eliminate the verbal interaction by using the spell to do only what it explicitly allows. If the angel isn't fighting for you you have to deal with the fluff.

and he would understand me because to cite Netheril: Empire of Magic (a 2nd edition book might I add)

Meaning that it can be called anything from Life Force to Magical Force to Vitality to anything in between. The point is, that casters know that when you are making a Magical item, you are required to give up a little bit of your XP or magical force or whatever you wish to call it, in it's production meaning that dating back from 2nd edition Casters have known that, so why is it so much of a stretch for the Solar, with his all might Intelligence of 22 and Spellcraft bonus of +31 to not know this? I'm not suggesting that the mystical whatever that XP represents is unknown. I'm flat saying that the only thing that suggests it's quantifiable in-universe is an unreliable source for such a suggestion.

My point never has been that the creature definitely doesn't know what you're talking about when you make the wish. Given it's array of mental abilities and skills, it almost certainly does. My point is that there is so much potential for miscommunication that if the solar wants to deliberately misinterpret what the caster says to him, it will be damned hard to prevent it. Even the way you've phrased it for your scepter (best phrasing yet, btw) has still left a small gap. Since the XP that goes into the creation of an item varies with the item's cost, which in turn varies with CL, he can create the rod at maximum caster level (equal to that of his wish SLA) while only funneling 500xp into the spell and claim that he put the maximum xp possible into the item. Once again, seriously limiting the device's power compared to what the caster intended.

It can very well meaning the difference between "I defeated the Lich Xykon" or "I killed the Lich Xykon" :smallconfused: Killing an opponent and stopping his machinations aren't necessarily accomplished with the same stroke of a sword, especially when a loyal minion can bring him back. A plan can be layed such that the one who layed it need not be available for that plan to reach completion, a hero can martyr himself to ensure victory, and in a world where death is inpermanent it's little more than a speed-bump to those that can overcome it. There's a definite corelation between death and defeat, but the two are not interchangeable.

So is performing an action that takes a single round and wishing for a magical item of infinite Permanency at highest XP value is a game mechanic. If you seriously expect your players to talk in Draconic when talking to a Dragon or Dwarven when your party Dwarf talks to his Momma then you are a crazy thematic DM :smalleek: I assure you I'm not nearly so... eccentric. I merely think that taking the outcome of this excersize as a granted, forgone conclusion, when there're so very many ways it can go so horribly wrong, is bad theory. To that end, I'm trying to poke as many holes in it as I can. Linguistic foul-ups are just one of the noteable possibilities.

You're right. I stand corrected. Anything that can be performed within the requisite time (1round/level) is an Immediate task. So your example of having the Solar cast Contingency is well outside of your bounds.

That one isn't my bounds. My bounds nuked this whole idea from go because a wish SLA couldn't create such an item within my bounds.

It's certainly not the most popular way to interpret things, but I still firmly believe that I haven't set one foot outside of RAW with my argument thus far.

If a DM exists at all in a TO excersize (a point I disagree with) then he should make rulings that don't favor either party in an interaction between to character/creatures.

Ruling that the caster definitely gets exactly what he wants when there are so many ways that it can go wrong and the fluff for the NPC strongly suggests it would be concerned about responsility for the actions of whomever it helped is favoring one party over the other. It's bad DM'ing and it's bad TO.

TuggyNE

2012-12-29, 07:37 PM

Honorable is a completely subjective matter. IMO, there's more honor in standing up for your dignity by using cunning to subvert the casters commands to confound him than in simply quitely giving in to his demands.

Cheating is violating the rules. The rules have to be defined before you can violate them. Confounding and denying the guy who freakin' kidnapped you isn't cheating. It's resisting a captor, which is to be expected.

Lying is telling a deliberate falsehood. A "lie of omission" isn't a lie at all, but a deceit. I find the idea that any creature that's as intelligent as a solar is incapable of deceit to be a ludicrous one. I have no problem with them refusing to tell deliberate falsehoods but I simply can't buy that they never, ever use misdirection of any kind. That's not good, it's stupid.

The only point in that description that you've got a solid point on is stealing. Even then taking the device back to the upper planes can be rationalized as not stealing, but simply asking the caster to earn the device after trying to steal the effect of a 1/day SLA. It's a test of valor, not a theft. Naturally the celestial would have to send word to the caster on the terms of this test, but it still amounts to cutting a deal in exchange for previously rendered services. Back-pay, if you will.

As I described in my previous comment, to cheat you have to have agreed upon rules to violate. Unless you can point to a ruleset that says the creature must give the caster exactly what he wants, choosing not to do so isn't cheating. Far more importantly, the notion of cheating is predicated on the notion of fair-play. What about this situation is fair to the solar?

It can be. Honor, like morality, is a social construct that has no meaning outside of the society it's attached to. What constitutes honor is never defined in D&D so we have to fall back on the RL definition for it, a definition that says it's subjective.

Batman is a specific person with a specific code of behavior that's very well documented. That has absolutely no bearing on the makeup of a culture or cultures of an infinite plane where good is the basic underlying element of the very ground you walk on and everything on it. As for the culture that solars come from, it's completely undefined beyond "Good." BoED can give us some ideas what that's about, but that's it. Lying and deception aren't evil, so there's absolutely no reason that even such inherently good creatures as celestials can't use them. It seems you're dragging a bit of your own morality into the discussion.

The writers may have had a particular sort of honor in mind (chivalric or something similar most likely) when they wrote the core books, but in failing to define that honor they render any reference to honor meaningless without a cultural reference point. An angel using deception to protect mortals from themselves doesn't strike me as the least bit dishonorable.
[...]
He's clever for using chaotic means to protect a mortal from power he's not sure that mortal can handle responsibly. There is no dishonor in his deception and he's not cheating because he's working within the boundaries of the situation as best he can.
[...]
As for taking the device being theft; is it? The caster put no effort into creating or earning the device, so his ownership of it is certainly contestable depending on how you handle the concept of ownership. It may not actually be "his" until the celestial actually hands it over to him.

In all these cases, you're trying to weasel around the clear import of the effective definition of honorable given right in the passage, which says that angels never lie, cheat, or steal and are extremely trustworthy in their dealings. What part of that includes "will deliberately misconstrue instructions in order to get out of a tedious task that consumes valuable resources"? Which part includes "fudges rightful ownership depending on whether someone deserves to own an object"? Which part includes "attempts to take advantage of all possible loopholes in a necessary service"? Which part includes "captors don't count as people and I don't have to be honest or forthright with them"?

I'm sorry, but no. I'm not buying any of this.

1
Really, in the moderately specific case of gating a Solar to get a magic item through wish, there's only one major thing that's definitely open to DM judgement, and that's whether the task is inherently "more involved" than fighting in a single battle or performing a task not more than round/CL long. I personally think the wording leans fairly strongly toward not being more involved, but I'll concede that there is room for reasonable difference.

Fighting for you in a single battle or taking any other actions that can be accomplished within 1 round per caster level counts as an immediate task; you need not make any agreement or pay any reward for the creature’s help. The creature departs at the end of the spell.

If you choose to exact a longer or more involved form of service from a called creature...

There's a weird inconsistency here: actions that can be finished within round/CL are explicitly called an "immediate task", and need no special agreement or payment. So what, then, is the meaning of "or more involved"? Arguably, it's a bit of a stutter, restating "longer": "If you choose to exact a longer, more involved form of service...". The alternative is that there's suddenly an open-ended exception to the previous clear and absolute statement, which is quite strange ("any actions that take less than 1.7 minutes need no agreement or payment, except when they're more involved than actions that take less than 1.7 minutes"). Either way, something's poorly phrased in the text here.

Kelb_Panthera

2012-12-30, 02:48 AM

In all these cases, you're trying to weasel around the clear import of the effective definition of honorable given right in the passage, which says that angels never lie, cheat, or steal and are extremely trustworthy in their dealings. What part of that includes "will deliberately misconstrue instructions in order to get out of a tedious task that consumes valuable resources"? Which part includes "fudges rightful ownership depending on whether someone deserves to own an object"? Which part includes "attempts to take advantage of all possible loopholes in a necessary service"? Which part includes "captors don't count as people and I don't have to be honest or forthright with them"? All three of the "parts" you're asking about rely on assumptions about certain concepts that are ill-defined IRL, much less in the game's rules. The concepts of honor, honesty, and ownership are all subjective to culture. Without a defined culture to measure them against they're just a handful of meaningless syllables. That I choose to interpret them differently from you doesn't make me wrong. It just means we disagree. Neither of us is outright wrong here, but the fact that I -can- be right means that the results I'm putting foward as possible are possible.

I'm sorry, but no. I'm not buying any of this.As is your prerogative. I'm not asking you to accept that this is how it definitely is. I'm only asking you to acknowledge that this is one of many possible interpretations of an ill-defined and complex set of ideas. Neither you nor anyone else have to use it for your actual games.

1

Really, in the moderately specific case of gating a Solar to get a magic item through wish, there's only one major thing that's definitely open to DM judgement, and that's whether the task is inherently "more involved" than fighting in a single battle or performing a task not more than round/CL long. I personally think the wording leans fairly strongly toward not being more involved, but I'll concede that there is room for reasonable difference.

There's a weird inconsistency here: actions that can be finished within round/CL are explicitly called an "immediate task", and need no special agreement or payment. So what, then, is the meaning of "or more involved"? Arguably, it's a bit of a stutter, restating "longer": "If you choose to exact a longer, more involved form of service...". The alternative is that there's suddenly an open-ended exception to the previous clear and absolute statement, which is quite strange ("any actions that take less than 1.7 minutes need no agreement or payment, except when they're more involved than actions that take less than 1.7 minutes"). Either way, something's poorly phrased in the text here.

I certainly can't disagree. I can however choose one of the two possible interpretations, as can any other GM. If the latter interpretation is chosen, then we're still working within the bounds of RAW.

silverwolfer

2012-12-30, 02:51 AM

what was the purpose of this thread again?

OracleofWuffing

2012-12-30, 03:01 AM

what was the purpose of this thread again?
To find out if there's a way to put permanency on an item, and if so, what it'd cost. *DING* I got it! We'll summon Santa Pazuzu to just wish it up for us for free! :smalltongue:

Kelb_Panthera

2012-12-30, 03:04 AM

what was the purpose of this thread again?

The OP asked if it was possible to make an item which casts permanency at will, presumably because he wasn't sure about how spells with XP components translate into magic items. Upon discovering that it would be painfully expensive he appears to have abandon the idea. We then got derailed into a discussion on the nature of using calling effects, specifically gate, to try and circumvent the cost using permanency or aquiring such an item.

I'm of the opinion that, due to ambiguous wording in the spell, it shouldn't be taken as a given that using gate can accomplish the desired end with no questions asked and no chance of failure; which is how the idea is generally presented.

Kelb_Panthera

2012-12-30, 03:08 AM

To find out if there's a way to put permanency on an item, and if so, what it'd cost. *DING* I got it! We'll summon Santa Pazuzu to just wish it up for us for free! :smalltongue:

If you want to draw the attention of a demon-lord to you, be my guest. Good luck with survival afterwards. You're going to need it.

Andezzar

2012-12-30, 03:19 AM

To find out if there's a way to put permanency on an item, and if so, what it'd cost. *DING* I got it! We'll summon Santa Pazuzu to just wish it up for us for free! :smalltongue:Don't forget to be a paladin first to avoid unwanted side effects with the wish.

silverwolfer

2012-12-30, 03:26 AM

aww and who was the op?

OracleofWuffing

2012-12-30, 03:26 AM

If you want to draw the attention of a demon-lord to you, be my guest. Good luck with survival afterwards. You're going to need it.
Well, I figured since we apparently can't trust the angels to do the nice thing...

aww and who was the op?
Eh, some guy, that's not important. The important thing is gating in solars. :smalltongue:

Kelb_Panthera

2012-12-30, 03:41 AM

aww and who was the op?
..... oh. :smallredface: Did we help at all? or did you still have questions about the item?

Well, I figured since we apparently can't trust the angels to do the nice thing...

You can't trust anyone to do something for nothing for a complete stranger. To even ask is absurd.

"Hey random being of immense power. Can you give me a slice of that power, even though you have no idea who I am and I just snatched you from home?"

Good response: not until I know you won't use it irresponsibly or for evil.

Evil response: sure. But it'll cost ya.

Chaotic response: maybe if I feel like it.

Lawful response: I have to consult with my superiors, code of conduct, or the standing tradition of my culture.

Stupid response that's somehow the expected answer: sure. Would you like fries with that?

OracleofWuffing

2012-12-30, 03:48 AM

You can't trust anyone to do something for nothing for a complete stranger.
Pffft, I'll believe that when you tell all my customers that! :smallamused:

Kelb_Panthera

2012-12-30, 04:02 AM

Pffft, I'll believe that when you tell all my customers that! :smallamused:

You're getting a paycheck at the end of the week, right?

The fact they aren't paying you directly doesn't mean you're getting nothing for your effort, though it's certainly no excuse to be as rude as I'm sure many of them are. You do it to keep your job so you can continue to collect that paycheck.

Back to the fictional situation. You're asking this magnificent being of pure good and extraordinary power to just accept that he's your bitch for the duration of the spell and give you whatever you damn well ask for. It's arrogant, demeaning, and foolhardy. It's the hubris that celestials have observed in mortal wizards from time immemorial. It's exactly the kind of thing that every piece of fiction you've ever read says is going to backfire horribly on the uppity little bastard of a wizard.

Why is it just assumed that it's going to go off without a hitch when there are so many ways it can go wrong and RAW doesn't do anything to guarantee success?

It's a result of a player-centric mind-set. That's why. There are a number of spells that unambiguously break the game, Polymorph and it's ilk come quickly to mind, but the various calling spells aren't them. Calling spells mean interaction with intelligent creatures with their own motives and goals. Asking any DM, including the theoretical optimization DM, to simply ignore this and give the caster what he wants is patently absurd.

Andezzar

2012-12-30, 04:14 AM

You can't trust anyone to do something for nothing for a complete stranger. To even ask is absurd.Not any more absurd than asking a "random being of immense power" to fight and possibly die for you for nothing.

Also I disagree with the opinion that there is ambiguity what kind of task using wish to create a magic item is. You check whether the task, not the orders or description of the task, is either a single combat encounter or can be accomplished within 1 round per caster level. If the answer is yes, and it is as an SLA only takes a single standard action, it can neither be longer nor more involved than that.

Back to the fictional situation. You're asking this magnificent being of pure good and extraordinary power to just accept that he's your bitch for the duration of the spell and give you whatever you damn well ask for. It's arrogant, demeaning, and foolhardy. It's the hubris that celestials have observed in mortal wizards from time immemorial. It's exactly the kind of thing that every piece of fiction you've ever read says is going to backfire horribly on the uppity little bastard of a wizard.True. But it is also a trope that the controlled cannot do anything to oppose the will of the uppity wizard until the spell is broken/ended.

Why is it just assumed that it's going to go off without a hitch when there are so many ways it can go wrong and RAW doesn't do anything to guarantee success?Nobody said that after the solar provided the caller with the magic item everything would be fine.

It's a result of a player-centric mind-set. That's why.Well the whole rule set is very PC centric. D&D rules would not work as a world simulation at all.

OracleofWuffing

2012-12-30, 04:38 AM

You're getting a paycheck at the end of the week, right?
Nope!

I get paid on every other week on Thursdays, and it is electronically deposited into my banking account so I never receive a paycheck per se. Yes, I know, that's only a semantic answer, I wanted to be silly for a moment.

Regardless, I have taken multiple calls where the person flat out states that they want a $50 gift card for free. Genuinely. Not for a return or for an inconvenience, just that they want free stuff, and they deserve it on that basis. You can tell me it's absurd to go up to a stranger, ask for free stuff, and expect to get it unconditionally until you're blue in the face/font. Heck, it probably is absurd. But don't tell me, tell everyone else that, 'cause they do exactly that, and in some cases, they actually receive it.

Kelb_Panthera

2012-12-30, 04:38 AM

Not any more absurd than asking a "random being of immense power" to fight and possibly die for you for nothing. I don't disagree, but the spell makes that command explicitly an immediate task. There's no room for interpretation here.

Also I disagree with the opinion that there is ambiguity what kind of task using wish to create a magic item is. You check whether the task, not the orders or description of the task, is either a single combat encounter or can be accomplished within 1 round per caster level. If the answer is yes, and it is as an SLA only takes a single standard action, it can neither be longer nor more involved than that.Here we must simply agree to disagree. All I ask is that you acknowledge the possibility that a DM -can- rule the way I've suggested. Whether or not he should or would is a decision for an individual DM to make.

True. But it is also a trope that the controlled cannot do anything to oppose the will of the uppity wizard until the spell is broken/ended.True, but it's far less prevalent in my experience, not that it matters which is more prevalent.

Two conflicting precedents don't automatically make one or the other a non-entity.

Nobody said that after the solar provided the caller with the magic item everything would be fine. LOL. They certainly didn't, thank the gods. I'd feel foolish actually having to argue against something that ridiculous.

Well the whole rule set is very PC centric. D&D rules would not work as a world simulation at all.

I'm kind of on the fence as to whether the 3.5 rule-set makes a decent simulation or not, but I can definitely say I disagree with the rules being player-centric. All creatures use the exact same rules in regards to mechanical interaction. HD are HD, spells affect PC's and monsters in just the same manner, etc. The only noted exception is diplomacy.

The game is player-centric, the rules are not.

Kelb_Panthera

2012-12-30, 04:46 AM

Nope!

I get paid on every other week on Thursdays, and it is electronically deposited into my banking account so I never receive a paycheck per se. Yes, I know, that's only a semantic answer, I wanted to be silly for a moment.You know what I meant. :smallamused:

Regardless, I have taken multiple calls where the person flat out states that they want a $50 gift card for free. Genuinely. Not for a return or for an inconvenience, just that they want free stuff, and they deserve it on that basis. You can tell me it's absurd to go up to a stranger, ask for free stuff, and expect to get it unconditionally until you're blue in the face/font. Heck, it probably is absurd. But don't tell me, tell everyone else that, 'cause they do exactly that, and in some cases, they actually receive it.

Tell me. Are these people current customers? how often is the gift card actually given to non-customers, no questions asked? Have you ever actually simply given out one of these gift cards, no questions asked, without consulting your superiors? If so, why do you still have that job?

It -is- absurd to make that request, and I guarantee that noone in your office ever just says "okay" without there being any more to it.

Absurd things do sometimes happen, but what I'm arguing against is the notion that something so absurd should happen every single time it might happen. Reality, and your situation in particular, says that it doesn't work like that.

Andezzar

2012-12-30, 05:17 AM

All I ask is that you acknowledge the possibility that a DM -can- rule the way I've suggested. Whether or not he should or would is a decision for an individual DM to make.Of course a DM can do that, but that would be a houserule. The execution of an order by the called creature cannot both be an immediate task and and contractual service. The condition for it to be an immediate task is that the necessary actions can be completed within 1rd/CL, unless it is combat anyways. If the task can be completed within 1rd/CL it obviously does not take longer 1rd/CL or is more involved than an immediate task (which again is any task whose necessary actions can be completed within 1rd/CL).

It is a binary situation. It is either one or the other. So unless you can prove that using an SLA somehow takes longer than 1rd/CL, using wish must be an immediate task.

I'm kind of on the fence as to whether the 3.5 rule-set makes a decent simulation or not, but I can definitely say I disagree with the rules being player-centric. All creatures use the exact same rules in regards to mechanical interaction. HD are HD, spells affect PC's and monsters in just the same manner, etc. The only noted exception is diplomacy.

The game is player-centric, the rules are not.There are many more exceptions than diplomancy (you are referring to the rule that PCs cannot use diplomacy on PCs, right?):
- Magic item creation rules (especially the xp part)
- Always selling stuff for half price as PC but full price as NPC
- Not sure whether that counts but there are some abilities that are (nigh) impossible to get as a PC that are easily available for Monsters i.e. a subset of NPCs.

There may be others but those are the ones that spring to my mind.

TuggyNE

2012-12-30, 05:36 AM

I don't disagree, but the spell makes that command explicitly an immediate task. There's no room for interpretation here.

As Andezzar and I have both already mentioned, the same clause makes any task that can be accomplished within one round/level an immediate task. There is similarly no room for interpretation.

(If you want to be consistent, you could say that some battles are unexpectedly more involved, and require negotiation, despite otherwise fitting the "immediate task" criteria. I don't think that's the intended meaning, of course, but it's a possible way to look at the RAW.)

Kelb_Panthera

2012-12-30, 06:58 AM

Of course a DM can do that, but that would be a houserule. The execution of an order by the called creature cannot both be an immediate task and and contractual service. The condition for it to be an immediate task is that the necessary actions can be completed within 1rd/CL, unless it is combat anyways. If the task can be completed within 1rd/CL it obviously does not take longer 1rd/CL or is more involved than an immediate task (which again is any task whose necessary actions can be completed within 1rd/CL).

It is a binary situation. It is either one or the other. So unless you can prove that using an SLA somehow takes longer than 1rd/CL, using wish must be an immediate task.The underlined is the crux of my argument and always has been. As tuggyne pointed out in his last post, there exact wording of the spell (possibly) creates an implicit clause of "unless the task is more involved" in the description of an immediate task. Throwing out the phrase "or more involved" from the spell's description of contractual service is more of a housrule than making use of it ever could be.

Perhaps if I put it like this. The contractual service portion of the spell description creates 2 sets. Those tasks that take longer than 1rnd/cl, which may or may not include granting a wish (I still believe that simply activating the SLA isn't necessarily the only component possible), and those that are more involved than an immediate task, which definitely can include literally anything but the battle at hand since that is the only action specifically called out as an immediate task. By completely disregarding the second set as a possibility, you're deviating from RAW.

I've put foward the possibility that any use of a wish SLA can be considered to be a more involved task, which in no way contradicts RAW.

There are many more exceptions than diplomancy (you are referring to the rule that PCs cannot use diplomacy on PCs, right?):
- Magic item creation rules (especially the xp part)
- Always selling stuff for half price as PC but full price as NPC
- Not sure whether that counts but there are some abilities that are (nigh) impossible to get as a PC that are easily available for Monsters i.e. a subset of NPCs. The crafting rules apply equally to npcs, as does the XP abstraction. If NPC's didn't have xp then it would be utterly impossible for a hedge-wizard to cast any spell with an xp component. This, in-turn, would completely negate the previous argument that XP is even a known factor in-game.

Always selling stuff at half-price is a combination of the abstraction of the economic system and the fact that pc's are at a disadvantages bargaining position relative to the people they're selling to. In fact, A&EG has some guidelines for a more realistic economic system that short-circuts this point entirely, and Races of Stone has rules for haggling that simultaneously change both the "NPC's always sell at full-price" and the "PC's always sell at half-price" portions of that point. Even were I to concede this point, it's a point that works -against- the PC's, not for them, and is therefore not evidence of a player-centric rule-set.

Monsters can be PC's and normal PC's can become monsters. That point definitely falls flat.

There may be others but those are the ones that spring to my mind.It's too bad they don't stand up to scrutiny.

As Andezzar and I have both already mentioned, the same clause makes any task that can be accomplished within one round/level an immediate task. There is similarly no room for interpretation. You put foward an alternate interpretation yourself. Why are you discounting it now?

(If you want to be consistent, you could say that some battles are unexpectedly more involved, and require negotiation, despite otherwise fitting the "immediate task" criteria. I don't think that's the intended meaning, of course, but it's a possible way to look at the RAW.)
Actually, that's an entirely valid point. Fighting in a single battle is given as a direct example of an immediate task, but if there is no chance at all that the combat can be resolved in 1 rnd/CL, then even combat could fall under contractual service. (The math necessary in calculating such a thing is more trouble than it's worth, and any creature capable of dealing 50 points of damage to all of the enemies on the field, no matter how slim the chance, -can- finish combat with each of those foes in a single round with a bit of luck.)

Andezzar

2012-12-30, 08:21 AM

The underlined is the crux of my argument and always has been. As tuggyne pointed out in his last post, there exact wording of the spell (possibly) creates an implicit clause of "unless the task is more involved" in the description of an immediate task. Throwing out the phrase "or more involved" from the spell's description of contractual service is more of a housrule than making use of it ever could be.I'm not throwing the possibility of being more involved out in general. I, and most likely tuggyne as well, say that any given order cannot be both accomplishable within 1rd/CL and more involved than a task requiring 1rd/CL or less.

Even if you allow this illogical proposition it is in the hand of the caller to decide what kind of service he commands the gated creature to perform.
If you choose to exact a longer or more involved form of service from a called creature...

Perhaps if I put it like this. The contractual service portion of the spell description creates 2 sets. Those tasks that take longer than 1rnd/cl, which may or may not include granting a wish (I still believe that simply activating the SLA isn't necessarily the only component possible),The problem is the spell only references what the called creature has to do, not what the caller might have to do to instruct it to do that. What the called creature has to do is one standard action. Even if you consider listening to the instructions as part of the task, I'm sure you can reasonably describe the desired magic item in under 16 rounds (shorter if you somehow acquired Gate before CL 17).

and those that are more involved than an immediate task, which definitely can include literally anything but the battle at hand since that is the only action specifically called out as an immediate task. By completely disregarding the second set as a possibility, you're deviating from RAW.If battle is the only thing you allow as an immediate task, then you are ignoring RAW. Immediate tasks are "Fighting for you in a single battle or taking any other actions that can be accomplished within 1 round per caster level" not just fighting in a single battle.

I've put foward the possibility that any use of a wish SLA can be considered to be a more involved task, which in no way contradicts RAW.There however is no indication in the RAW that the Wish SLA works any different from any of the other SLAs or other abilities of the gated creature.

Even were I to concede this point, it's a point that works -against- the PC's, not for them, and is therefore not evidence of a player-centric rule-set.Player-centric may be the wrong word, but this distinction makes the rules a bad simulation tool. You arbitrarily assign different rules to basically the same creature.

Monsters can be PC's and normal PC's can become monsters. That point definitely falls flat.Only a small number of Monsters can become PCs (those with an LA). Gelatinous Cubes and Balors are just two examples of those that can't.

Actually, that's an entirely valid point. Fighting in a single battle is given as a direct example of an immediate task, but if there is no chance at all that the combat can be resolved in 1 rnd/CL, then even combat could fall under contractual service. (The math necessary in calculating such a thing is more trouble than it's worth, and any creature capable of dealing 50 points of damage to all of the enemies on the field, no matter how slim the chance, -can- finish combat with each of those foes in a single round with a bit of luck.)Actually that is not possible. As long as it is a single battle that assistance is an immediate task and the duration is irrelevant, because of the meaning of the word OR. The two conditions would have to be connected bey AND to put a time restriction on the battle.
It cannot become a contracutal service automatically if the battle takes longer because that is a choice of the caller, as I quoted above.

OracleofWuffing

2012-12-30, 03:02 PM

Tell me. Are these people current customers? how often is the gift card actually given to non-customers, no questions asked? Have you ever actually simply given out one of these gift cards, no questions asked, without consulting your superiors?
If they call in, they are customers. I am not authorized to distribute gift cards manually, so I just fill out the forms asking for one to be sent out and why, and then later on I usually check on that form and see that someone has stated that a gift card has been issued.

If so, why do you still have that job?
In the time it takes me to repeatedly inform them that I cannot perform such a request, ask if I can do something different for them, threaten to disconnect the call, and then fill out the forms explaining to my superiors why I have disconnected a call, I could have helped up to five other customers, and an uncertain number of customers who were waiting on hold have disconnected due to what is presumed to be long hold times. That's ignoring that my manager and her managers would end up reviewing that call for that disconnect and then disciplining me because I disconnected on a customer, and their time could also be spent more productively.

It -is- absurd to make that request, and I guarantee that noone in your office ever just says "okay" without there being any more to it.
Then I want you to give me my money back (:smalltongue:), because I have listened to other peoples' calls where that exact thing happens and have been informed by my superiors to do the same.

MukkTB

2012-12-30, 04:40 PM

This thread has gotten very far afield. Some interpretation of TO may allow gate to solve the problem, but probably not.

Does the op want a TO solution? Does the op want something he could realistically use in a game? What circumstances surround the request? What is the op trying to achieve with a permanency item?

TuggyNE

2012-12-30, 05:27 PM

You put foward an alternate interpretation yourself. Why are you discounting it now?

Mostly, I was using a bit of hyperbole to indicate that you really cannot claim that fighting in a single battle is the only unambiguously immediate task in the spell description. You can either consistently consider any battle or task within 1 rd/level immediate, or consistently consider both of those immediate unless they're more involved, but you can't split it up.

Actually, that's an entirely valid point. Fighting in a single battle is given as a direct example of an immediate task, but if there is no chance at all that the combat can be resolved in 1 rnd/CL, then even combat could fall under contractual service. (The math necessary in calculating such a thing is more trouble than it's worth, and any creature capable of dealing 50 points of damage to all of the enemies on the field, no matter how slim the chance, -can- finish combat with each of those foes in a single round with a bit of luck.)

Here you're equating "longer" and "more involved". Sure, if a battle takes longer than rd/level, it shouldn't be considered an immediate task. Neither should any other action. If that's all that "more involved" indicates (and, in context, I can't imagine any other logical meaning that could change certain battles but not others into negotiated service), then we're back to my suggestion that the "or" is misplaced, and "more involved" is just a clarification of "longer" — and can't be used by a creature, deliberately or otherwise, to get out of performing an otherwise valid immediate task.

Which is probably the most internally-consistent reading, on the whole.

This thread has gotten very far afield. Some interpretation of TO may allow gate to solve the problem, but probably not.

The only part that's (borderline) TO in the gate suggestion is exploiting the lack of value limitation for magic items in wish. (A dubious trick, to be sure, and incidentally one the OP's DM forbade.) Actually using gate for wish in the first place is not TO or even especially cheesy, although it is a powerful (or overpowered) tactic.

Does the op want a TO solution? Does the op want something he could realistically use in a game? What circumstances surround the request? What is the op trying to achieve with a permanency item?

It seems to have been intended for use in an actual game, but more clarification is always nice.

Kelb_Panthera

2012-12-30, 05:29 PM

If they call in, they are customers. I am not authorized to distribute gift cards manually, so I just fill out the forms asking for one to be sent out and why, and then later on I usually check on that form and see that someone has stated that a gift card has been issued.So you don't even make the decision then? They make their unreasonable demand, you fill out a form, and maybe they get what they want if someone else or some rule within the company's policy says so?

In the time it takes me to repeatedly inform them that I cannot perform such a request, ask if I can do something different for them, threaten to disconnect the call, and then fill out the forms explaining to my superiors why I have disconnected a call, I could have helped up to five other customers, and an uncertain number of customers who were waiting on hold have disconnected due to what is presumed to be long hold times. That's ignoring that my manager and her managers would end up reviewing that call for that disconnect and then disciplining me because I disconnected on a customer, and their time could also be spent more productively. The fact that 1 customer is worth 10 employees to most companies is a sad state of affairs. It really sucks that it's such a common outlook. I've worked in a customer service position myself so I feel your pain, man.

Then I want you to give me my money back (:smalltongue:), because I have listened to other peoples' calls where that exact thing happens and have been informed by my superiors to do the same.

Sorry, no refund. What you've described is definitely more complicated than "they make the request then they automatically get what they asked for every time, no questions asked." :smalltongue:

Kelb_Panthera

2012-12-30, 06:04 PM

Mostly, I was using a bit of hyperbole to indicate that you really cannot claim that fighting in a single battle is the only unambiguously immediate task in the spell description. You can either consistently consider any battle or task within 1 rd/level immediate, or consistently consider both of those immediate unless they're more involved, but you can't split it up. And I've clearly chosen the latter. Commanding the creature to fight a single battle is an immediate task. Telling it to fight that same battle, but it must use the strategy and tactics you've layed out for it is a contractual service. Telling it to fight in a combat that it cannot possibly complete within the 1 rnd/cl time limit is also a contractual service. The former two sentences comply with the implicit "unless it's more involved" clause that the contractual service description adds to the immediate tasks description. The third complies directly with the contractual service description by being impossible to complete within the 1rnd/cl time limit for an immediate task, though it's mostly academic since the odds of such an occurence are ridiculously slim.

Here you're equating "longer" and "more involved". Sure, if a battle takes longer than rd/level, it shouldn't be considered an immediate task. Neither should any other action. If that's all that "more involved" indicates (and, in context, I can't imagine any other logical meaning that could change certain battles but not others into negotiated service), then we're back to my suggestion that the "or" is misplaced, and "more involved" is just a clarification of "longer" — and can't be used by a creature, deliberately or otherwise, to get out of performing an otherwise valid immediate task. You misunderstand. I wasn't saying that a combat that did take longer than 1 rnd/cl would become a contractual service. I was saying that if a combat could not possibly be completed within the 1 rnd/cl time-limit that it was a contractual service to begin with. Naturally, I don't expect anyone to actually calculate the odds to determine such a thing. Nevertheless, it is technically possible.

The only part that's (borderline) TO in the gate suggestion is exploiting the lack of value limitation for magic items in wish. (A dubious trick, to be sure, and incidentally one the OP's DM forbade.) Actually using gate for wish in the first place is not TO or even especially cheesy, although it is a powerful (or overpowered) tactic. Clearly I disagree. There's nothing about using gate to get the creature in front of you that's TO. The TO part is that gate definitely compels the creature to use it's wish SLA on the caster's behalf with no chance of miscommunication or deliberate subversion and with no cost. It's bad theory, IMO, and I've spent the last 3+ pages describing why.

It seems to have been intended for use in an actual game, but more clarification is always nice.

Given that his DM went with the old 15k limit for wish, I strongly suspect that any method of completely bypassing the cost of permanency will be vetoed. He might be able to get away with gating in the solar and offering it 1100gp to render 3 spells permanent with it's permanency SLA. (the 1100gp is drawn from the description for suitable compensation laid out in planar ally. 100gp/HD for a task that takes less than 1 minute/CL divided in half for a completely safe task. Solars have 22HD.)

Andezzar

2012-12-30, 06:16 PM

Kelb_Panthera

2012-12-30, 06:32 PM

Where do the rules say that the task becomes "more involved" if the instructions/commands for the task become more complex? That is simply your assumption. The text make no such claim. The length and "involvedness" are properties of the task not of the command to perform that task.For wish, we've come to an impass. I consider the command to be "grant my wish" and the act of carefully listening to the necessarily complex description of that wish, that's necessary to prevent wish twisting, to be part of the task. If you don't think listening carefully is a task all by itself, then we simply cannot come to an understanding.

The example of having to follow a predetermined tactical and strategic plan is clearly a more complex task than simply being required to fight the opponent however you see fit. Following a set tactical plan can easily stretch the minimum time necessary to complete the engagement to well beyond the time limit. If you can't see that then there's not much point in continuing this conversation, since you're not even trying to see my point of view.

I'm not asking you to agree with me. Only to give my position due consideration and to acknowledge that the RAW -can- be read that way.

And again the gated creature has no choice in what kind of deed the caller demands.

I never said that he did. Only that the creature can, and in certain circumstances would, exploit any mistakes the caster made in outlining the deed he wants done. The nature of how and when a creature would exploit such mistakes is dependent on the nature of the creature and its own goals and motives.

Andezzar

2012-12-30, 06:42 PM

For wish, we've come to an impass. I consider the command to be "grant my wish" and the act of carefully listening to the necessarily complex description of that wish, that's necessary to prevent wish twisting, to be part of the task. If you don't think listening carefully is a task all by itself, then we simply cannot come to an understanding.Agreed, I'll let it lie.

TuggyNE

2012-12-30, 07:56 PM

And I've clearly chosen the latter.

That wasn't entirely clear before, but thanks for noting it.

You misunderstand. I wasn't saying that a combat that did take longer than 1 rnd/cl would become a contractual service. I was saying that if a combat could not possibly be completed within the 1 rnd/cl time-limit that it was a contractual service to begin with. Naturally, I don't expect anyone to actually calculate the odds to determine such a thing. Nevertheless, it is technically possible.

I'm ... not sure how what I said is incompatible with your statements, since I wasn't particularly basing my argument on whether a battle specifically "would" or "could" take too long (only on the general idea that "too-long battle = contractual").

Clearly I disagree. There's nothing about using gate to get the creature in front of you that's TO. The TO part is that gate definitely compels the creature to use it's wish SLA on the caster's behalf with no chance of miscommunication or deliberate subversion and with no cost. It's bad theory, IMO, and I've spent the last 3+ pages describing why.

"TO" is assuming that the creatures described follow basic patterns of behavior and obey spell descriptions etc, with no special provision for, say, Solars getting together after thousands of years of Wizardly abuse and instating new precautions that aren't phrased in the rules. Unreasonable, yes, in various ways, but in the absence of a DM specifically figuring out what those new provisions are, TO just says that nothing not explicitly described in some fashion will happen. Similarly, the absence of a DM to figure out how to interpret something not specifically in the rules that the player wants means that the player won't get that in TO, even if it would be perfectly reasonable in an actual game.

Miscommunication or deliberate subversion are assumed to be possible in rare cases, but only if the caster in question fails to take some relatively straightforward and well-understood precautions, which are assumed to be practical in all cases. (And, of course, the idea that all creatures of any alignment and personality, however normally opposed to underhanded behavior in general, will attempt to deliberately subvert instructions at all opportunities seems ... strange.)

So TO gating a Solar for wish, or even an Efreeti, should be possible so much of the time to be considered "workable", while in practice trying to get a free wish from an Efreeti in an actual game may be fraught with all kinds of problems that the player would need to solve. (I.e., they can't necessarily be resolved trivially with standard protocols.) The question here is only whether Solar behavior is similarly dangerous and untrustworthy to an LE deceptive genie, in a reasonable game. (I don't think it is, so gate-wish is therefore not TO, only very powerful.)

Kelb_Panthera

2012-12-30, 09:04 PM

That wasn't entirely clear before, but thanks for noting it.

I'm ... not sure how what I said is incompatible with your statements, since I wasn't particularly basing my argument on whether a battle specifically "would" or "could" take too long (only on the general idea that "too-long battle = contractual").Okay, now I'm lost too. I think I may have addressed that wrong. Let me try again.

You said that I was equating longer and more involved in the statement you addressed. I was not. I was acknowledging that the minimum time for some battles could take longer than the immediate task time-limit. This can result either from probability saying that there is -no- chance of the called creature actually defeating the enemy(s) in the allotted time or from a tactical plan laid out by the caster in his command instructions that force the creature to spend combat time on tasks other than directly engaging the enemy. The latter of which may also fall under the more complex clause. The fact that a battle can take longer than the allotted time doesn't make it a contractual service, but if circumstance demands that combat must take longer than the allotted time then even combat can be a contractual service.

"TO" is assuming that the creatures described follow basic patterns of behavior and obey spell descriptions etc, with no special provision for, say, Solars getting together after thousands of years of Wizardly abuse and instating new precautions that aren't phrased in the rules. Unreasonable, yes, in various ways, but in the absence of a DM specifically figuring out what those new provisions are, TO just says that nothing not explicitly described in some fashion will happen. Similarly, the absence of a DM to figure out how to interpret something not specifically in the rules that the player wants means that the player won't get that in TO, even if it would be perfectly reasonable in an actual game. By this definition of TO the phrase "or taking any other actions that can be accomplished within 1 round per caster level" is rendered moot. It creates implications, not explicit allowances. In the no DM version of TO, the entire calling subschool is rendered useless for anything but summoning combat minions. They -all- have phrasing about what's "reasonable" and in the absence of a DM judgement call nothing is reasonable, therefore nothing is the only thing that can be accompished outside of explicit examples. This means that none of the wish granting creatures will grant the caster's wish in a TO excersize at all. Nor will they, or any other called creature do much of anything at all. Gate will get them to fight for you, but that's about it.

Personally, I think that's better theory craft than what's usually put foward.

The alternative is to highlight judgement calls that would be made by many, if not most, reasonable DM's. I'm more than willing to hazard a guess that many, if not most, DM's would decide that getting a wish with fewer limitations by using another spell of the same level but with a lower xp cost is unreasonable and would try to block it. Since this is supposedly a TO excersize, that block has to be found without violating the terms of RAW. I've put foward what I believe is a legitimate block that doesn't violate RAW.

Miscommunication or deliberate subversion are assumed to be possible in rare cases, but only if the caster in question fails to take some relatively straightforward and well-understood precautions, which are assumed to be practical in all cases. Deliberate subversion of a caster using a spell himself would definitely be going against the ideas behind TO. The caster isn't casting the spell himself in this case though. Subversion is one of the things that the caster has to guard against in this situation. Miscommunication is a relatively rare occurence but that's a result of the rarity of necessary communication. Nearly all of the spells that involve communication are spells whose sole purpose is that communication. In this case, however, communication isn't the end-result of the spell, but a mid-point requirement of the desired results. While the presence of miscommunication shouldn't be taken as a given, neither should its absence.

(And, of course, the idea that all creatures of any alignment and personality, however normally opposed to underhanded behavior in general, will attempt to deliberately subvert instructions at all opportunities seems ... strange.)You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but given the fact that there have been, and still are, cultures where such cleverness is seen as a virtue, dismissing subversive and deceptive communication as underhanded shows a bias based in a particular set of cultural moores. I'll take my angels that trick mortals for their own good without telling overt falsehoods over the angels that are always unfailingly blunt and overly honest any day of the week. The Baatezu should've conived the latter out of existence eons ago, IMO.

That said, I want to clarify that neither version of angelic behavior is any more correct than the other. Both are ways that a DM -can- choose to represent angels without stepping outside of what's written in the books.

So TO gating a Solar for wish, or even an Efreeti, should be possible so much of the time to be considered "workable", while in practice trying to get a free wish from an Efreeti in an actual game may be fraught with all kinds of problems that the player would need to solve. (I.e., they can't necessarily be resolved trivially with standard protocols.) The question here is only whether Solar behavior is similarly dangerous and untrustworthy to an LE deceptive genie, in a reasonable game. (I don't think it is, so gate-wish is therefore not TO, only very powerful.)

Gating in an outsider for any spell-like crosses the boundary from practical optimization to theoretical optimization when the caster does so as a means to bypass the normal cost of a given effect. Gate is the only spell that even comes close to allowing this. Planar binding has a clause that says the called creature will never agree to an unreasonable bargain and planar ally makes payment the rule rather than the exception. To the best of my knowledge, these two lines and gate are the only calling spells available. (please correct me on this if I'm wrong. If I am it's because I've forgotten or overlooked the others and I'd like to scrutinize them.) Trying to get a wish for free is always TO. Trying to do it by using a calling effect is just bad TO.

Someone mentioned simulacra or ice-assassins in either this or another thread. Those are -much- sturdier theoretical points to stand on, though they have their own problems, noteably, getting a piece of the creature to be copied.

The most effective means I've seen is using shapechange to become a zodar and getting wish as a SU on the caster himself, however temporarily. I've got absolutely no counter for that one.

There are ways to accomplish the desired end here. I just don't understand why the worst possible one (a calling effect) is the go-to answer.

TuggyNE

2012-12-30, 09:53 PM

You said that I was equating longer and more involved in the statement you addressed. I was not. I was acknowledging that the minimum time for some battles could take longer than the immediate task time-limit. This can result either from probability saying that there is -no- chance of the called creature actually defeating the enemy(s) in the allotted time or from a tactical plan laid out by the caster in his command instructions that force the creature to spend combat time on tasks other than directly engaging the enemy. The latter of which may also fall under the more complex clause. The fact that a battle can take longer than the allotted time doesn't make it a contractual service, but if circumstance demands that combat must take longer than the allotted time then even combat can be a contractual service.

Ah, my mistake then.

By this definition of TO the phrase "or taking any other actions that can be accomplished within 1 round per caster level" is rendered moot. It creates implications, not explicit allowances. In the no DM version of TO, the entire calling subschool is rendered useless for anything but summoning combat minions. They -all- have phrasing about what's "reasonable" and in the absence of a DM judgement call nothing is reasonable, therefore nothing is the only thing that can be accompished outside of explicit examples. This means that none of the wish granting creatures will grant the caster's wish in a TO excersize at all. Nor will they, or any other called creature do much of anything at all. Gate will get them to fight for you, but that's about it.

OK, where in the text of gate does the "immediate task" choice (which is phrased, for whatever reason, as a choice on the part of the caster) mention anything about reasonableness? I'm not seeing it. The only loophole you have is that a DM can declare a particular task "more involved", but that requires active DM fiat to force it that way, rather than requiring active DM fiat to allow a task to be immediate.

The alternative is to highlight judgement calls that would be made by many, if not most, reasonable DM's. I'm more than willing to hazard a guess that many, if not most, DM's would decide that getting a wish with fewer limitations by using another spell of the same level but with a lower xp cost is unreasonable and would try to block it. Since this is supposedly a TO excersize, that block has to be found without violating the terms of RAW. I've put foward what I believe is a legitimate block that doesn't violate RAW.

TO doesn't assume a reasonable (or unreasonable) DM that's trying to block this by any possible RAW interpretation. TO assumes a neutral/absent/computer-like DM that goes with only the defaults and doesn't add much of anything. (That is, the "no-judgement-calls" version must inarguably lead to the desired result, but it's assumed that NPCs will not take unstated actions that they conceivably could or should in order to prevent this scheme.)

However, let me revise my earlier statement about the cheesiness of wish-gating specifically: yes, it is cheesy. I had neglected the XP differential consideration for some reason. :smallsigh:

There are ways to accomplish the desired end here. I just don't understand why the worst possible one (a calling effect) is the go-to answer.

Perhaps because it's so simple (one spell, one monster entry, one spell-like), and requires nothing but Core.

OracleofWuffing

2012-12-31, 01:17 AM

So you don't even make the decision then? They make their unreasonable demand, you fill out a form, and maybe they get what they want if someone else or some rule within the company's policy says so?
I make the decision to fill out the form, once it hits the division that takes forms, it's kinda their job to do what the form says to do. I'm not authorized to view gift card balances without the customer's immediate presence, so I have no reason to believe that a gift card was not sent out unless the customer calls back to complain that they haven't received their gift card. And, well, I haven't had to fill out the form for that issue more than once, and that actually involved some complications that deserved such a resolution. :smalltongue:

The fact that 1 customer is worth 10 employees to most companies is a sad state of affairs. It really sucks that it's such a common outlook. I've worked in a customer service position myself so I feel your pain, man.
Eh, the pay's good and the benefits are awesome. Plus, it provides interesting anecdotes to use on message boards. But to tie all this back together for the sake of tying things back together, if I work for real-life folks who are too busy to outright tell folks "No," then there's bound to be at least five fictional embodiments of good that aren't out to make life a personal hell for the guy that's going to be attacked by bandits next week and lose all his gear. And, if not, I'll just "Take my business to their competitors." :smalltongue:

Kelb_Panthera

2012-12-31, 06:06 AM

OK, where in the text of gate does the "immediate task" choice (which is phrased, for whatever reason, as a choice on the part of the caster) mention anything about reasonableness? I'm not seeing it. The only loophole you have is that a DM can declare a particular task "more involved", but that requires active DM fiat to force it that way, rather than requiring active DM fiat to allow a task to be immediate.

TO doesn't assume a reasonable (or unreasonable) DM that's trying to block this by any possible RAW interpretation. TO assumes a neutral/absent/computer-like DM that goes with only the defaults and doesn't add much of anything. (That is, the "no-judgement-calls" version must inarguably lead to the desired result, but it's assumed that NPCs will not take unstated actions that they conceivably could or should in order to prevent this scheme.)In the case of a computer-like DM only allowing what is explicitly allowed by the text, the "more involved" phrase negates the possibility of using gate for anything other than combat. Since anything can be defined as more involved, regardless of duration, then deciding that anything other than the explicit examples given in the text are not more involved is the DM adding something. The only thing the computer-DM can allow gate to do is make the creature fight for you, and even that's dicey. It can be considered that a computer-like DM simply can't allow that use of gate at all since even combat can be defined as more involved.

This same line of thought eliminates wish as a useable SLA for a caller to demand anyway. The rules don't say anything about the caster being able to make decisions about a spell or spell-like he didn't cast. If we ignore the above, then the caster can get the creature to use it's wish SLA, but since the creature must determine how the wish takes effect based on how the creature interprets the caster's command, and the DM can't define how the creature interprets what's said to it, the wish is expended to no effect.

A computer-DM simply cannot allow gate-wish to work at all. Any version of this that works requires -some- input from a DM that's not supposed to have any input.

However, let me revise my earlier statement about the cheesiness of wish-gating specifically: yes, it is cheesy. I had neglected the XP differential consideration for some reason. :smallsigh: It happens.

Perhaps because it's so simple (one spell, one monster entry, one spell-like), and requires nothing but Core.

The only difference between that and shapechanging to a zodar is that the zodar is described outside of core. Shapechanging to a zodar is definitely cheesier (shapechange has no xp component at all) but it's immensely similar and requires -no- DM input whatsoever. It's better TO and that's all there is to it.

TuggyNE

2012-12-31, 11:09 PM

In the case of a computer-like DM only allowing what is explicitly allowed by the text, the "more involved" phrase negates the possibility of using gate for anything other than combat. Since anything can be defined as more involved, regardless of duration, then deciding that anything other than the explicit examples given in the text are not more involved is the DM adding something. The only thing the computer-DM can allow gate to do is make the creature fight for you, and even that's dicey. It can be considered that a computer-like DM simply can't allow that use of gate at all since even combat can be defined as more involved.

I'm not getting this at all. "More involved" requires a specific judgement call to make an exception, so a computer-y DM would simply ignore it, leaving only the obvious duration criterion. It's not something that requires specific adjudication to run at all, but the rather the reverse.

The only difference between that and shapechanging to a zodar is that the zodar is described outside of core. Shapechanging to a zodar is definitely cheesier (shapechange has no xp component at all) but it's immensely similar and requires -no- DM input whatsoever. It's better TO and that's all there is to it.

Well, it's certainly tidier and cheaper, but Core-only is always amusing, if only as a demonstration piece.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-01-01, 05:15 AM

I'm not getting this at all. "More involved" requires a specific judgement call to make an exception, so a computer-y DM would simply ignore it, leaving only the obvious duration criterion. It's not something that requires specific adjudication to run at all, but the rather the reverse.Since anything that's not explicitly allowed (only fighting in a single battle in this instance) requires a judgement call as to wether or not it's more involved, regardless of duration, deciding a thing is not more involved is still deciding to allow the spell to do something it can't explicitly do. If you're going to ignore "more involved" why not ignore "longer" too? They're both part of the spell's text. Why not ignore "any other task that can be accomplished within 1 round per level?"

Ignoring the more involved phrase is functionally equivalent to ignoring any other part of the spell's text, IMO. Might as well ignore the HD limit while you're at it.

What do you think of my comment about the caster of gate not getting to decide the parameters of the wish? That's certainly a case of judgement being necessary to adjudicate.

Well, it's certainly tidier and cheaper, but Core-only is always amusing, if only as a demonstration piece.

Core-only is next to meaningless for TO. Groups that play with core only generally do so specifically to avoid such things, however misguided their method of avoidance might be.

Twilightwyrm

2013-01-01, 05:38 AM

WHAT!? Lemme quote the relavent section for Gate here for you so I know we're reading the same spell

bolded emphasis :smallsmile:

DM is flat friken wrong here :smallconfused:

Atleast have him tell you why this house rule is in place :smallconfused:

To prevent exactly this sort of thing from happening, perhaps?

Andezzar

2013-01-01, 05:42 AM

Since anything that's not explicitly allowed (only fighting in a single battle in this instance) requires a judgement call as to wether or not it's more involved, regardless of duration, deciding a thing is not more involved is still deciding to allow the spell to do something it can't explicitly do.The choice is the caster's not the DM's. So the TO DM does not even enter into it.

What do you think of my comment about the caster of gate not getting to decide the parameters of the wish? That's certainly a case of judgement being necessary to adjudicate.Why would he?

"Solar, use your wish ability to create an item with the following properties: [...]. Give that item to me." Does not leave much decision making to the DM. As long as the time to describe the item does not exceed (1rd/CL)-1rd, it clearly falls under "any other task that can be accomplished within 1 round per level".

Kelb_Panthera

2013-01-01, 06:09 AM

The choice is the caster's not the DM's. So the TO DM does not even enter into it. False. The caster decides what to ask for and can deliberately ask for something he knows will take longer or be more involved. The DM decides what constitutes more involved. This is simply an intentional misreading, not a logical argument.

Why would he?

"Solar, use your wish ability to create an item with the following properties: [...]. Give that item to me." Does not leave much decision making to the DM. As long as the time to describe the item does not exceed (1rd/CL)-1rd, it clearly falls under "any other task that can be accomplished within 1 round per level".

The caster decides what he says, not what the creature hears or its understanding of it. Those are adjudicated by the DM according to his understanding of the lore in the books.

Also, this is not a dominate effect, assuming the solar can't and won't take any actions -not- commanded by the caster is unreasonable. The solar is gated in. Upon seeing that the caster is any alignment other than evil, the solar simply leaves, or attacks if he does detect evil, until the caster commands him to stop. If a binding circle with all the bells and wistles is laid out, the solar expends its wish on freeing itself by generating an AMF on itself, which simultaneously frees it from your control as well. Any command to cast a wish now takes an entire day, since the ability has to recharge, and isn't an immediate task anymore. The creature exits the now inert binding circle, regardless of any commands to the contrary, dismisses the AMF, and leaves.

Hell, the solar's probably immune to the gate's command effect anyway, per the description for protection from evil's effect which is included in the protective aura.

If TO assumes that a given spell doesn't do anything other than what it says it does, then any limitation on the Solar's actions that isn't a command given by the caster is something added by the reader to get the desired result from his gate spell.

Bonus points: if you tell the solar to stop when you detect him activating his wish, it's still expended as an interupted spell. He just doesn't get to make the concentration check to make it activate anyway.

Arcanist

2013-01-01, 06:32 AM

To prevent exactly this sort of thing from happening, perhaps?

I left this thread because it's become less of a discussion and more of Kelb dancing around words and citing fluff as legitimate RAW. A good example of this would be saying that a Solar would attack the Gate-r for being Evil, when there is nothing to back that up... it's like arguing that a Devil will murder a Malkonvoker for Gating him just because he's good (it's the same thing except in reverse).

A computerized DM will look at gate referencing two things.

Does it take longer then 1rd/cl to perform?

If yes, it is an immediate task
If no, it is a contractual task (see Planar Ally for compensation)

A SLA takes 1rd to activate therefore it is an immediate task. If this were not the case, we'd have Outsiders deliberately dragging on battles for say... 30 minutes and never kill each other unless they're oppositely aligned. If they're on the same side, however they would just use banish or dismiss (most likely banishment so they have time to spend with there kids on the weekends).

Lonely Tylenol

2013-01-01, 06:50 AM

So, I TL;DR'd this about halfway into the second page because it seemed to devolve into largely semantic discussions about the nature of a Solar's Wish, when everybody seemed to be missing the big picture:

By level 17, you can Wish for it yourself.

Use Shapechange in order to change yourself into a Zodar (Field Folio, p. 199). You gain all supernatural abilities of your chosen form in place of your own. Zodars have Wish (Su) once per year. Cast Wish on yourself as a (Su) ability, ignoring, well, all of the downsides of Wish as a spell. Use it to duplicate whichever of the following "safe" Wish effects is most relevant to you:

Duplicate any wizard or sorcerer spell of 8th level or lower, provided the spell is not of a school prohibited to you.
Duplicate any other spell of 6th level or lower, provided the spell is not of a school prohibited to you.
Duplicate any wizard or sorcerer spell of 7th level or lower even if it’s of a prohibited school.
Duplicate any other spell of 5th level or lower even if it’s of a prohibited school.

As a free action next round, change into something else. Then, the round after that, change into a Zodar. Rinse and repeat. (You are not the same Zodar, because you are not a Zodar and have not remained a Zodar throughout this entire process. You should thus have access to the supernatural Wish ability again... Correct?)

Of course, if your DM was unwilling to let you make an item of at-will Permanency, using PF-like limitations on the spell, then he is probably not going to let you Shapechange yourself into infinite Wishes. So, this probably doesn't help you at all. Whoops.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-01-01, 06:52 AM

@Arcanist:

If an evil character gates in a solar, a creature that is utter anathema to evil, what possible reason could that caster have other than to use the solar's powerful SLA's to dark ends. It's perfectly reasonable for the solar to attack in that instance.

Completely discounting the fluff of gated creatures means that their behavior is either -entirely- up to the DM or null. If the former, then any and all responses and reactions that can happen will happen some portion of the time. If the latter, then the creature cannot interpret any communications directed at it and it won't do anything at all.

Discarding the fluff for various called creatures is discounting the option of calling those creatures entirely.

On the dragging out of battles, the text says that if the task can be completed in the given time that it's immediate. Attempting to deliberately drag out the battle won't do anything for the called creature. It's only if circumstance demands that the battle must take longer (either it's a statistical impossibility for the creature to complete the battle in the allotted time or the plan being forced on the creature forces him to take longer) then it may be a contractual service.

There is some interpretive room to negate this. The line is phrased "Fighting in a single battle or completing any other task that can be accomplished within 1 round per level." A cursory reading of this suggests that fighting in a single combat is in the same set as tasks that can be accomplished within 1 rnd/cl, but a more literal meaning may take combat and short tasks as two seperate sets. While both sets would be covered by the more involved clause, only the short tasks would be covered by the longer clause.

It can be interpreted that battle is always an immediate task unless it's more involved, regardless of the minimal time necessary to complete the combat.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-01-01, 07:01 AM

So, I TL;DR'd this about halfway into the second page because it seemed to devolve into largely semantic discussions about the nature of a Solar's Wish, when everybody seemed to be missing the big picture:

By level 17, you can Wish for it yourself.

Use Shapechange in order to change yourself into a Zodar (Field Folio, p. 199). You gain all supernatural abilities of your chosen form in place of your own. Zodars have Wish (Su) once per year. Cast Wish on yourself as a (Su) ability, ignoring, well, all of the downsides of Wish as a spell. Use it to duplicate whichever of the following "safe" Wish effects is most relevant to you:

As a free action next round, change into something else. Then, the round after that, change into a Zodar. Rinse and repeat. (You are not the same Zodar, because you are not a Zodar and have not remained a Zodar throughout this entire process. You should thus have access to the supernatural Wish ability again... Correct?)

Of course, if your DM was unwilling to let you make an item of at-will Permanency, using PF-like limitations on the spell, then he is probably not going to let you Shapechange yourself into infinite Wishes. So, this probably doesn't help you at all. Whoops.

I actually did mention this. It can be done reliably earlier than that too. Simply purchase a scroll of shapechange and you've got at least some chance of activating it at whatever minimal level you can afford to buy it. By around level 12-13 you can activate it with between minimal and no chance of failure.

If you're willing to spend the time to produce a crap-ton of ambrosia or agony, sacrifice a bunch of non-believers to your dark god, or simply be an artificer that eats a crap ton of magic items, you can use that xp to craft the blasted thing yourself.

With all the myriad ways there are to get either gobs of xp or wishes without limits, I just can't fathom why anyone would ever choose this gate folly, even in theory.

Andezzar

2013-01-01, 07:02 AM

False. The caster decides what to ask for and can deliberately ask for something he knows will take longer or be more involved. The DM decides what constitutes more involved. This is simply an intentional misreading, not a logical argument.No, the caster commands the solar to do something. Unless he "choose(s) to exact a longer or more involved form of service from a called creature" it is an immediate task. There are two options for immediate tasks, fighting in a single battle and "taking any other actions that can be accomplished within 1 round per caster level". Listening for 1rd/Cl -1rd and using a standard action cleary falls under any other action.

The caster decides what he says, not what the creature hears or its understanding of it. Those are adjudicated by the DM according to his understanding of the lore in the books.This adjucation is also required if the caller commands the solar to fight in a single battle. Who is to say if the solar understands that command?

Also, this is not a dominate effect, assuming the solar can't and won't take any actions -not- commanded by the caster is unreasonable.The spell does not spell out domination, but it says: "A controlled creature can be commanded to perform a service for you". The description also says which conditions must be met for the creature to be controlled (max HD, not a unique being or deity). The TO DM cannot do anything that is not explicitly allowed either. So if the solar is controlled by the caller, the DM cannot make the solar do something.

The solar is gated in, his always active alignment detections immediately pings the caster's alignment because he's presumably the only other person in the room. Upon seeing that the caster is any alignment other than good, the solar simply leaves or attacks until the caster commands him to stop.No, see above.

If a binding circle with all the bells and wistles is laid out, the solar expends its wish on freeing itself by generating an AMF on itself, which simultaneously frees it from your control as well.See above. And I'm not sure if the AMF (which has to be activated after the Gate spell is cast) works against the Instantaneous spell Gate.

Hell, the solar's probably immune to the gate's command effect anyway, per the description for protection from evil's effect which is included in the protective aura.How do you figure that? Neither is the caster necessarily evil nor does the spell gate say it is mental control. It most certainly lacks the school and descriptors mentioned in Protection from Evil.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-01-01, 08:24 AM

No, the caster commands the solar to do something. Unless he "choose(s) to exact a longer or more involved form of service from a called creature" it is an immediate task. There are two options for immediate tasks, fighting in a single battle and "taking any other actions that can be accomplished within 1 round per caster level". Listening for 1rd/Cl -1rd and using a standard action cleary falls under any other action.I agree that carefully listening to the instructions necessary to prevent wish twisting and then activating the SLA is not covered under the longer clause, provided it's completed within the time limit. If a caster is comfortable with keeping his description short enough to fit in the time limit, then by all means let him try. Some effort will have to be put into practicing his recital of the description and measures will need to be taken to ensure he doesn't accidently run over. If the GM adjudicates that such a command doesn't constitute a more involved task then that would work, subject to possible miscommunication. This could be reasonably handled by some skill or intelligence checks in the case of a player that doesn't want to try and actually do this as straight RP.

However, the spell does not specify who decides what constitutes a more involved task. It could be interpreted that the creature or the DM makes that call as easily as it could be interpretted that the caster does.

Assuming that it's the caster -is- an assumption that doesn't necessarily hold. If the caster is the one who decides what constitutes a more involved service then the phrase is meaningless and should've been left out of the description. It only creates ambiguity for what should otherwise be a straightfoward description. If it was the creature, then it negates the immediate tasks clause for duration, since there's no reason to assume that most creatures would forgoe payment for anything other than the combat that the spell explicitly states, and, consequently, all tasks other than combat would be more involved as the rule, instead of the exception.

This leaves the GM, who's supposed to try to keep the game as balanced as he can within the rules (discounting rule 0 for TO excersizes, of course). This seems, to me, to be the most logical interpretation, but I must concede that it's not the only one.

This adjucation is also required if the caller commands the solar to fight in a single battle. Who is to say if the solar understands that command? Kill that *points at enemy* is extremely difficult to misinterpret as long as there's a shared language. Tongues ensures the shared language for a solar and the fact that everything that can speak speaks common takes care of the rest.

The spell does not spell out domination, but it says: "A controlled creature can be commanded to perform a service for you". The description also says which conditions must be met for the creature to be controlled (max HD, not a unique being or deity). The TO DM cannot do anything that is not explicitly allowed either. So if the solar is controlled by the caller, the DM cannot make the solar do something. Which gives us "the caller can only communicate his wishes" and "the DM cannot make the creature act." The spell accomplishes nothing at all. Pretty sure I've said that a couple times now. :smalltongue:

No, see above. Ditto. If the DM cannot make the creature act then the caller's commands are meaningless. This is not "command" the spell, it's "command" the verb. It only means conveying ones wishes in such a manner as to show the expectation that the commanded will fulfill that wish. The spell says nothing at all about the commands being obeyed. It's implicit, certainly, but TO doesn't care about the designers' intent last I heard.

See above. And I'm not sure if the AMF (which has to be activated after the Gate spell is cast) works against the Instantaneous spell Gate.All calling spells being instantaneous creates an odd rules paradox. They're expended in the instant the creature is brought before you, and yet they allow ongoing control for a duration that is a function of CL. This means one of two things. Either the rules are wrong and the duration for calling spells and effects should be "see text" or only the commands given as part of the casting, and no commands given after, actually affect the creature. The negotiations that are part of planar binding eliminate the latter in that case, since the negotiation is explicitly part of the spell and takes place after the creature is transported. For planar ally, the negotiations are mentioned as part of the spells description, but can be taken to be guidlines rather than a function of the spell itself. Gate straddles the two ends of this paradox.

I'm going to go with the argument of specific trumps general in this case. Gate's duration line reads instantaneous or concentration up to 1rnd/cl. It's implied that the concentration duration was intended for the non-calling effect of the spell and that the instantaneous duration was to be applied to the calling effect. Planar binding gives us a precedent for a calling spell's instantaneous duration being an error in the text. Precedent isn't necessary, but I feel that it should be pointed out). One could rule that the concentration duration applies to the immediate tasks portion of the calling effect. (general: calling is instantaneous, specific: gate has a duration of concentration) the duration would revert to instantaneous for the contractual service portion of the spell. Under this reading the AMF would block any commands given by the caster once it was up.

In any case, the rule that all calling spells are instantaneous in duration is certainly a dysfunctional one.

How do you figure that? Neither is the caster necessarily evil nor does the spell gate say it is mental control. It most certainly lacks the school and descriptors mentioned in Protection from Evil.

The schools and descriptors are included but not exhaustive examples of what is meant by mental control. Any form of magic that forces a change in the behavior of the subject for more than a single act or offers ongoing control could be construed as mental control. That said, I don't think it really applies to the calling effect of gate. I withdraw that supposition.