Why are Solars seemingly the preferred choice for Gating? [Archive]

Phelix-Mu

2013-02-02, 12:16 AM

Hmm, people always talk about this as a great power scheme, but are the solars really obligated to do what the person that gated them in says? "Commanded" seems to be pretty straightforward for a controlled creature, but it seems to me that solars asked to do crazy things would respond in a manner not unlike the efeeti (sp?) commanded to abuse wish. Perhaps even more so, because if an efreeti can't retaliate against someone doing evil, it gets angry, but is under no moral or ethical compulsion to do anything about it.

A solar compelled to help mortals engaged in questionable behavior is pretty much obligated to pass the word on upstairs and make sure that all other solars have contingent banishment cast on self, or some such, when gated by said mortals.

In other words, a good trick once. Then get ready to be blacklisted by every good-aligned church on your plane.

If you ask something reasonable of the solars, I'm sure this isn't a problem. Infinite solar chain isn't reasonable. Neither is compelling someone to request something unreasonable from their god.

Really down to role play and setting flavor, I guess, but woe to the celestials and divine beings that don't look with some disdain on immensely powerful mortals running amok with spells. Ask not for whom the bell tolls...:smallcool:

ericgrau

2013-02-02, 12:18 AM

Gating lets you force the creature to do any immediate task for free, such as fighting or anything it could accomplish in 1 round per caster level. Greater services have a fee. Powergamers tend to interpret that as "Sweet, I can force it to cast wish and so on as long as it doesn't take more than 1 round per caster level." Personally I don't buy it.

Specifically it says "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."

I would call wish something more involved that requires a contract.

Besides all that the intent behind the wording seems to be to not waste time if the caster just wants someone to help him fight or some such little thing, just like you don't make deals with summons, but to have a contract for something more. Going infinitely beyond fighting for you or something similar without making a contract seems to be against the intent. And besides all that infinite wishes requires a reflex save vs. a flying DMG. But hopefully learning the intent will let players use gate in a fun way that won't get it banned.

Phelix-Mu

2013-02-02, 12:34 AM

I'm thinking most solars have seen someone try this trick before. They probably give the first summons by a particular person the benefit of the doubt, then put their own spellcasting and access-to-the-divine resources to work dealing with the problem.

So while the DM should probably let the players do it once, since the spell does say that that's how it works, the solars should not sit back and take such manipulation lightly. Can't really expect to compel champions of goodness to do your highly questionable bidding and then be allowed to do it a second time. While the solar has to do what you ask of it within the 1 round/level, no where does it say that it can only do what you ask of it, so I would think the DM would be well within rights to have the solar contact a divine power and spread word that any summoning it performs should be countermanded or some such. I guess we can discuss the degree to which the precise spells used actually make this possible. If making friends with a normal cleric 20 and then compelling him/her to do stuff isn't gonna fly for long, then I think it should be even less plausible with solars.

Note, also, the spell gains the good descriptor when you summon a solar. Guess this has little impact for an arcane caster, but it probably has some impact on alignment when you use the power of goodness for personal gain. More fluff and setting flavor, though.

Speaking of which, where should it have said that you can't use this spell off-plane to summon and compel other characters to do your bidding? Wow. Loophole.

Flickerdart

2013-02-02, 12:41 AM

Speaking of which, where should it have said that you can't use this spell off-plane to summon and compel other characters to do your bidding? Wow. Loophole.
It does say that - unique creatures, such as PCs are due to having class levels, are not obligated to pass through a Gate that targets them.

Sucrose

2013-02-02, 12:41 AM

I'd say that almost as appealing as the raw power that the Solar possesses is the fact that it is a Good-aligned creature. As such, while it might consider infinite Solar chains a waste of heavenly resources, it probably will hold no grudge about being Called to aid in common near-Epic questlines, since anything actually serious enough to make a PC spend a 9th level spell slot is probably something that the Solar cares about.

Evil-aligned creatures, such as Balors or Pit Fiends, on the other hand, are more likely to try to hunt your character down after you've made use of them.

Phelix-Mu

2013-02-02, 01:23 AM

It does say that - unique creatures, such as PCs are due to having class levels, are not obligated to pass through a Gate that targets them.

Hmm, this seems like the start of a slippery slope, though. I took unique beings to be anything not divine but not belonging to a specific race, like Dalmosh or that Illurien (sp?) chick. By this measure you can't summon any humanoid or outsider lacking racial HD, since if a class level is all that is needed to be "unique," then even npc classes should probably count.

Likewise, wouldn't savvy solars just pick up a template or psychic reformation themselves so they aren't identical to the MM entry? Where does differentiation between individuals (by MM RAW the DM can make each solar unique by assigning different Knowledge skills) turn into "unique?" Making it a having a class level seems arbitrary. Are advanced solars or ones with the elite array summonable, or are they "unique?"

Urpriest

2013-02-02, 01:29 AM

It does say that - unique creatures, such as PCs are due to having class levels, are not obligated to pass through a Gate that targets them.

That's not what unique creatures means, though. Unique being has a very specific meaning in the setting, and it means creatures that are the only member of their race, like Archdukes of Hell, Demon Princes, and gods.

Anyway, people like Solars for two reasons: first, as a melee beast with a bevvy of spells and unlikely to seek revenge on a good party, and secondly because they mistakenly think you can chain gate them (as others may have mentioned, a Gated Solar cannot cast Gate, as it would cost XP, however a Gated Titan can use its Gate SLA. Chain gate Titans, not Solars: this has been an Urpriest PSA).

Flickerdart

2013-02-02, 01:52 AM

That's not what unique creatures means, though.
Doesn't it? I've never found a definition anywhere, and "not like the typical member of its race" seems to fit the bill just as well as "creature that is the only one of its kind".

Urpriest

2013-02-02, 01:54 AM

Doesn't it? I've never found a definition anywhere, and "not like the typical member of its race" seems to fit the bill just as well as "creature that is the only one of its kind".

Unfortunately, there aren't any SRDs of earlier editions, so I can't check this, but I've been told that in past editions it was rather explicit. And while rules don't carry over, setting concepts probably should.

Flickerdart

2013-02-02, 01:59 AM

Likewise, wouldn't savvy solars just pick up a template or psychic reformation themselves so they aren't identical to the MM entry?
Sure, but then you could still gate in an unsavvy one. The MM entry is for a typical solar, who represent the majority of their kind.

TuggyNE

2013-02-02, 02:25 AM

Anyway, people like Solars for two reasons: first, as a melee beast with a bevvy of spells and unlikely to seek revenge on a good party, and secondly because they mistakenly think you can chain gate them (as others may have mentioned, a Gated Solar cannot cast Gate, as it would cost XP, however a Gated Titan can use its Gate SLA. Chain gate Titans, not Solars: this has been an Urpriest PSA).

Whaddya know, here I was thinking they had gate as a 1/day SLA, but such is not the case; it's not even listed among their usual spells prepared.

Now I'm really puzzled as to how this idea got started in the first place. (Although admittedly, it's only summoned creatures that refuse to cast XP-burning spells/SLAs; calling has no such limitation.)

Flickerdart

2013-02-02, 02:28 AM

TuggyNE

2013-02-02, 03:36 AM

Aharon

2013-02-02, 03:46 AM

It does say that - unique creatures, such as PCs are due to having class levels, are not obligated to pass through a Gate that targets them.

That is one interpretation. Another one, which I find more reasonable, is that they fall under the class "particular beings". If "Unique" and "Particular Being" meant the same, the spell wouldn't have to describe how it interacts with unique creatures and how it interacts with particular beings.

It is probable that this is a 2nd edition artifact, where creatures had a Frequency: something entry. (For example, "Unique" for the Tarrasque). Humans and other player character races didn't have "Unique" Frequency and thus could be called and gated.

ETA: I also like this idea because it provides a great in-game explanation for "Why does the high-level wizard give the job to me instead of doing it himself?"
Once people reach a certain fame, they have to worry about their enemies trap-gating and killing them. Extremely high-level characters have to worry about being gate-ambushed, and thus usually use dimensional lock etc. to be safe. The downside is that they can only travel via Portals or conventional travel - they can't react quickly to problems they could solve easily if those problems are too far away.
Basically, the "Cold War" Scenario makes more sense again, and I can run high-level adventures where time and travel time are issues.

Xerxus

2013-02-02, 05:35 AM

Phelix-Mu

2013-02-02, 07:44 AM

Could a solar miracle a contingency on itself to dismissal/banishment itself if commanded to perform non-good acts? I am not a maven on what constitutes a valid trigger for contingency, so I refer the questions to more experienced gamers. Not sure the wording of banishment allows a creature to cast it on themselves, though, now that I check. Dismissal seems to work. Hurray for spells that are based on other spells, but actually are totally different.

Now that I look at it more closely, banishment is a lot less useful than dismissal, since it appears to only work when the caster is on their home plane. How moronic.

Back to the solar issue, in a somewhat related thread, we have discussed how it is important for creatures of good to not contribute to doing evil, even when commanded. Suggestion that solars won't hunt people down for compelling them to do evil things is silly talk. Granted, a solar may be wise enough to cook up some alternative punishment for the foolish wizard; the next planar binding said wizard casts summons a sanctify the wicked should-be-evil beastie, which is now free to act freely, since magic circle v evil won't work on them. Not a sterling plan, but that took me around 2 minutes to cook up. The solar will probably put more effort into it.

Calling a titan sounds even less responsible, and the DM might be within reason to deem each titan a unique creature; old flavor from 2e stated that each titan had unique abilities connected to it's sphere of influence.

Oh summoning/calling subschools! Thou art so poorly defined, one couldst drive yonder school bus through gaps in thy spell descriptions.

Eldariel

2013-02-02, 08:17 AM

StreamOfTheSky

2013-02-02, 10:40 AM

I think it is telling that the difference between the Pathfinder Gate and the DnD Gate is that you can only control a creature with as high an HD as your Caster Level in Pathfinder, but in DnD it's the double.

So no Solars even with an orange Ioun Stone in Pathfinder. But if you cheese it with spell specialization then it works again.

To me, what breaks the Gate spell isn't some silly infinite loop combo with chain-gating and wishes, etc... that would simply be laughed off and rejected by the DM unless he actually liked the idea.

My problem w/ Gate is that it has NO limits! "Oh, drat, I can't control what comes through the portal. Heavens forbid if I, your friendly neighborhood psychotically chaotic evil fiend summoner, were to unleash an insanely high HD demon in the middle of the largest city in this country. I mean, then it'd just run AMOK and destroy EVERYTHING! I'd so hate for that to happen...."

It's a blatantly unbalanced spell whose power for the most part is inversely proprtional to the scruples of the caster. Now PF did semi-fix this by hard capping the outsider you can call at double your CL in HD. But that's still pretty obscene.

Yora

2013-02-02, 10:49 AM

Now I'm really puzzled as to how this idea got started in the first place.
Munchkinnery that is only tangentially related to games actually played by people. Like most serious optimization.

Some things are just bad, like Shapechange, but most rely rather unlikely combinations of happenstances. Like being 18th level. How often does that actually happen?

Xerxus

2013-02-02, 10:57 AM

Beads of Karma and Orange Prism Ioun Stone does work tho.

Never saw that one before. But it is possibly the cheesiest magic booster I have ever seen.

awa

2013-02-03, 09:22 AM

i always thought you just had him miracle you up a candle of invocation and that's how the chain worked

Greenish

2013-02-03, 09:36 AM

But hopefully learning the intent will let players use gate in a fun way that won't get it banned.Because using a single spell to call just one CR 23 entity that fights like the fighter and casts like the cleric to fight for you is fair and balanced. :smallcool:

Eldariel

2013-02-03, 09:43 AM

Killer Angel

2013-02-03, 10:09 AM

So while the DM should probably let the players do it once, since the spell does say that that's how it works, the solars should not sit back and take such manipulation lightly. Can't really expect to compel champions of goodness to do your highly questionable bidding and then be allowed to do it a second time.

See, in real play, of course the DM will stop the abuses, BUT, by RAW, there's no such limit, and TO is all about RAW.
Solar's reaction is determined by the DM, so it's personal, and this is something that doesn't enter in the equation, when we discuss about raw theory and gate's effects.

TuggyNE

2013-02-03, 05:12 PM

Really, the only problem with Gate is that it has the "instant work" clause which is senseless (what does that have to do with porting creatures in?) and wrong school (mind control is enchantment) and offers no save (WTF?). Gate's plenty strong without it; just remove that function and it'll be fine.

Sure, you can still wreck cities by gating in demons or whatever but it's a level 9 spell, that's kinda the expected level of power. And it's not like you act as anything more than a conduct there; said creatures have access to Plane Shift just fine. Mebbe give it a slightly longer casting time; 1 minute or so.

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with this to a fair extent; no-save mind-control without the mind-affecting tag is really messed up.

See, in real play, of course the DM will stop the abuses, BUT, by RAW, there's no such limit, and TO is all about RAW.
Solar's reaction is determined by the DM, so it's personal, and this is something that doesn't enter in the equation, when we discuss about raw theory and gate's effects.

What's more, it's at least plausible that you could arrange for the Solar to react favorably in most cases; an Exalted Good caster, for example, or faking that alignment. So while moderate DM fiat can fix some cases, it's not enough on its own to reliably nerf the spell.

Killer Angel

2013-02-04, 03:11 AM

What's more, it's at least plausible that you could arrange for the Solar to react favorably in most cases; an Exalted Good caster, for example, or faking that alignment.

Indeed.
It's harder (while possible) to don't keep in account the possible nasty surprises if you gate some efreeti for the wishes.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-02-04, 03:16 AM

See, in real play, of course the DM will stop the abuses, BUT, by RAW, there's no such limit, and TO is all about RAW.
Solar's reaction is determined by the DM, so it's personal, and this is something that doesn't enter in the equation, when we discuss about raw theory and gate's effects.

I cannot say how strongly I disagree with the last portion of this statement. The exact details of how a solar reacts may vary from one DM to another, but to pretend that these super-genius level creatures with a vested interest in making sure that they do no harm in the world would never find out or be interested in finding out if they've been duped is absurd.

Gate and all other calling effects should be left out of TO altogether since they simply cannot be invoked without calling on the DM to play the part of an NPC to adjudicate.

Killer Angel

2013-02-04, 03:22 AM

Kelb_Panthera

2013-02-04, 03:34 AM

I agree with your sentiment, but sadly, when someone tries to apply this line of reasoning to Gate, sooner or later, you'll have someone that put on the table diplomacy checks and fanatic Solars... :smallsigh:

The best diplomacy could do to a solar is helpful. Fanatic is explicitly a mind-affecting enchantment effect and would be blocked by the solar's always on magic circle against evil, courtesy of the protective aura trait that all angels share.

Killer Angel

2013-02-04, 04:32 AM

The best diplomacy could do to a solar is helpful. Fanatic is explicitly a mind-affecting enchantment effect

You have a point, no fanatic, but still it'll be helpful and, unless you're going for something evil, you'll have no problems in your hypothetical TO.

Vaz

2013-02-04, 06:09 AM

Doesn't it? I've never found a definition anywhere, and "not like the typical member of its race" seems to fit the bill just as well as "creature that is the only one of its kind".

There is a creature called a Dragonhound I think in oneof the FR books; that is a unique creature and explicitly states as such.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-02-04, 06:27 AM

You have a point, no fanatic, but still it'll be helpful and, unless you're going for something evil, you'll have no problems in your hypothetical TO.

Even fanatics don't like discovering they've been duped.

Involving any NPC you can't trivially stomp into the dirt and not have his allies come gunning is foolish. Such an NPC isn't one you should trifle with in any kind of TO fashion.

A solar is a better bruiser than a barbarian and a 20th level cleric besides. Treating them as anything less than the major players they have the capacity to be is just wishful thinking. (forgive the pun)

Rogue Shadows

2013-02-04, 09:23 AM

I would call wish something more involved that requires a contract.

Using a single spell-like ability as a standard action is involved?

Much as it feels weird to do this in defense of chain-gating solars and efreet, I think you're both reading too much into that word, and also not using it correctly besides, in order to not get it to function the way the RAW makes it function, much as we wish it didn't function that way.

An efreeti or solar or such using its wish SLA is an action that, for it, takes about three seconds of game time and a minimal amount of effort. It is not, by any definition of the word that I'm aware of, "involved" - that is to say, "very intricate or complex."

An "involved" task, is, like, "solve this nine-by-nine Super Sudoku Rubics Cube that is on fire, without putting out the fire," or something.

Answerer

2013-02-04, 09:38 AM

The best diplomacy could do to a solar is helpful. Fanatic is explicitly a mind-affecting enchantment effect and would be blocked by the solar's always on magic circle against evil, courtesy of the protective aura trait that all angels share.
Magic circle against evil does not work that way. It suppresses specifically compulsions that attempt to directly control the actions of the one who has the magic circle. The fanatic status is not listed as a compulsion, and does not directly grant the diplomancer complete control. It's more like a super-charm than dominate.

Flickerdart

2013-02-04, 10:58 AM

There is a creature called a Dragonhound I think in oneof the FR books; that is a unique creature and explicitly states as such.
That are a lot of creatures that are one of a kind; that's not the point.

Mnemnosyne

2013-02-04, 11:15 AM

Unfortunately, there aren't any SRDs of earlier editions, so I can't check this, but I've been told that in past editions it was rather explicit. And while rules don't carry over, setting concepts probably should.

Yeah, unique creatures are those there is only one of. In 2nd Edition, it's listed under Frequency, as Aharon says. In the Monstrous Manual, the only creature with that entry is the Tarrasque. The Solar, which appears in the Planescape Monstrous Compendium Appendix, Volume 1, has an entry of Very Rare.

In any event, in 2nd Edition, Gate was not limited to summoning non unique beings; the spell entry implies that even a god can be summoned via Gate (well, his avatar, since in 2E, gods were assumed to simply be non-statted entities). It doesn't guarantee that the called being comes through, though. Something will come through, but it may be a servant of the called being. Additionally, there is absolutely no control granted, and it specifies that the being called will punish the caster if he decides he was called improperly. Not exactly relevant, but useful context information to give history of the spell if someone wants to house rule it.

TopCheese

2013-02-04, 01:12 PM

One of my favorite campaigns was were I was being harrassed by every good alligned church/paladin/cleric. Not overly hostile but I was black listed from most churches of the good or neutral (moral side) allignment...

All because my character' great grandfather chain gated solars and pissed off a ton of gods. (Who was my last character before this one haha).

Tons of fun!

Once my wizard hit high level (18 ish) he got his cleric to send a message and then gated in solars (took a couple years in game) to appologize to each one personally.

Awesome roleplay/side quest XP for that one.

Dimers

2013-02-04, 02:39 PM

Magic circle against evil does not work that way. It suppresses specifically compulsions that attempt to directly control the actions of the one who has the magic circle.

Incorrect. SRD says "the barrier blocks any attempt to ... exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment (charm) effects and enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject, such as dominate person)." Any attempts to exercise mental control.

Heck, now that I read it again, it occurs to me that that blocks extraordinary and natural abilities along with supernatural and spell-like! Depending on the DM's interpretation of "mental control", of course, which might include or exclude stuff like Bluff, Diplomacy and Intimidate. Or any morale bonus, like from bard abilities.

Answerer

2013-02-04, 03:24 PM

Incorrect. SRD says "the barrier blocks any attempt to ... exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment (charm) effects and enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject, such as dominate person)." Any attempts to exercise mental control.
The phrase used is "ongoing control," which is not what fanatic does. Diplomacy influences one's perspective and opinion, but does not control directly. Instead, you are convincing someone that they want to listen to you.

Vaz

2013-02-04, 04:21 PM

That are a lot of creatures that are one of a kind; that's not the point.

Every single thing in the universe is then unique, if you take it further than the existing meaning of "unique creatures" not referring to creatures listed as being unique.

Flickerdart

2013-02-04, 04:26 PM

Every single thing in the universe is then unique, if you take it further than the existing meaning of "unique creatures" not referring to creatures listed as being unique.
No, because MM stat blocks specifically reflect a generic creature.

Vaz

2013-02-04, 04:37 PM

No, because MM stat blocks specifically reflect a generic creature.

Apart from when there is a mention of it being unique; such as with the Dragonhound being listed as Unique.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-02-05, 02:10 AM

Using a single spell-like ability as a standard action is involved?

Much as it feels weird to do this in defense of chain-gating solars and efreet, I think you're both reading too much into that word, and also not using it correctly besides, in order to not get it to function the way the RAW makes it function, much as we wish it didn't function that way.

An efreeti or solar or such using its wish SLA is an action that, for it, takes about three seconds of game time and a minimal amount of effort. It is not, by any definition of the word that I'm aware of, "involved" - that is to say, "very intricate or complex."

An "involved" task, is, like, "solve this nine-by-nine Super Sudoku Rubics Cube that is on fire, without putting out the fire," or something.
We already had this discussion not so long ago. I'll dig up a link in a sec. Here you go. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=265638) The op's question was answered before the first page finished then we went into a lengthy discussion on the nature of gating solars.

If you don't feel like reading 5 pages, it basically boils down to the fact that the kind of lawyerish reading of the books that TO calls for -can- construe granting a wish as "more involved" since that phrase, and the spell as a whole, is ill-defined. Note that the emphasized word in the previous sentence is "can" not "must." The whole thing's about as clear as mud.

Magic circle against evil does not work that way. It suppresses specifically compulsions that attempt to directly control the actions of the one who has the magic circle. The fanatic status is not listed as a compulsion, and does not directly grant the diplomancer complete control. It's more like a super-charm than dominate.

The target behaves as you desire because of a mind-affecting enchantment effect that has a duration of 1 day per point of charisma bonus. It's a hell of a lot more of a stretch to say that it's not ongoing mental control than it is to say it is.

strider24seven

2013-02-05, 03:28 AM

I cannot say how strongly I disagree with the last portion of this statement. The exact details of how a solar reacts may vary from one DM to another, but to pretend that these super-genius level creatures with a vested interest in making sure that they do no harm in the world would never find out or be interested in finding out if they've been duped is absurd.

Gate and all other calling effects should be left out of TO altogether since they simply cannot be invoked without calling on the DM to play the part of an NPC to adjudicate.

I fail to see how a DM is necessary.
Let's take an extreme example- kidnapping a solar, brainwashing her, and forcing her into eternal servitude to an evil wizard.
1) Call a Solar, order her to drop her spell resistance for 1 round and to fail her save against the next spell you cast upon her.
2) Cast Mindrape
3) ???
4) Profit!

Because dropping one's spell resistance and failing a save takes less than 17 rounds (the minimum CL to cast Gate generally), then it counts as an immediate task (see below for a lengthier explanation if necessary), which the Solar is compelled to perform without payment. The Solar's disposition and reaction is irrelevant to this use of Gate.

However, if you wanted to haggle for an extended service, then that would be inside the realm of DM adjudication if and only if you wish to use RP to convince the Solar to agree to your demands. If the Solar's reaction is relevant to a TO experiment (unlikely), assume Hostile and go from there.

Gating lets you force the creature to do any immediate task for free, such as fighting or anything it could accomplish in 1 round per caster level. Greater services have a fee. Powergamers tend to interpret that as "Sweet, I can force it to cast wish and so on as long as it doesn't take more than 1 round per caster level." Personally I don't buy it.

Specifically it says "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."

I would call wish something more involved that requires a contract.

I would direct you to the relevant bits of the rules involved and suggest you actually read them:

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.

A spell-like ability takes the same amount of time to complete as the spell that it mimics (usually 1 standard action) unless otherwise stated.

Universal
Level: Sor/Wiz 9
Components: V, XP
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: See text
Target, Effect, or Area: See text
Duration: See text
Saving Throw: See text
Spell Resistance: Yes

At will—aid, animate objects, commune, continual flame, dimensional anchor, greater dispel magic, holy smite (DC 21), imprisonment (DC 26), invisibility (self only), lesser restoration (DC 19), remove curse (DC 20), remove disease (DC 20), remove fear (DC 18), resist energy, summon monster VII, speak with dead (DC 20), waves of fatigue; 3/day—blade barrier (DC 23), earthquake (DC 25), heal (DC 23), mass charm monster (DC 25), permanency, resurrection, waves of exhaustion; 1/day—greater restoration (DC 24), power word blind, power word kill, power word stun, prismatic spray (DC 24), wish. Caster level 20th. The save DCs are Charisma-based.

Last time I looked, using a spell-like ability as a standard action (note the lack of any alternate casting times under the solar entry), definitely falls within the bounds of "1 round per caster level", and is therefore considered an immediate task.

Since a task can either be intermediate or more involved, but not both, then the task "use your Wish Spell-Like ability as directed by me" counts as an immediate task by any valid interpretation. Therefore, you need not offer payment for their services. You just get a Wish and a solar for CL - X rounds, where X is 1+the number of rounds needed to direct the solar in casting a wish spell.

However, if the Solar does not have its Wish SLA remaining at the time of Gating (not unreasonable), then you don't get your Wish... just a Solar for 1 round per CL.

Killer Angel

2013-02-05, 03:47 AM

…and this is why I stand by my first position. TO and gate abusing cheese, require the mere application of RAW, and only in a real play, with a real DM that puts some logical limit, you can effectively (and easily) stop the trick.
Call it 100% RAW, 110% silly, if you want...

Kelb_Panthera

2013-02-05, 09:33 AM

Seriously; just read the thread I linked. There's no angle we failed to cover. We sliced apart the wording for gate and the possible courses of action every way you could think of. We even got into what exactly the nature of TO is toward the end.

Ultimately a DM decides what is or is not covered by the phrase "more involved." If you assume the DM doesn't make any decision at all, then that portion of the spell can't do anything at all in a TO environment. If you assume the DM will play the angel as a hostile entity then he appears before you and starts swinging, since there's nothing in the spell description limiting the creature from taking actions not explicitly commanded. If you assume the DM plays the creature as indifferent it's very safe to assume the creature will take the command to lower its defenses as a hostile action and use its remaining actions to try and foil the assault it knows is coming. If you assume the DM doesn't do anything, then the angel doesn't either because its an NPC under the DM's control.

There's simply no logical way to come to the conclusion that the player getting exactly what he wants is anything but a favorable DM call.

Chain gating is even dumber since only the first angel is under the player's control.

Rogue Shadows

2013-02-05, 09:49 AM

If you don't feel like reading 5 pages, it basically boils down to the fact that the kind of lawyerish reading of the books that TO calls for -can- construe granting a wish as "more involved" since that phrase, and the spell as a whole, is ill-defined. Note that the emphasized word in the previous sentence is "can" not "must." The whole thing's about as clear as mud.

It's a standard action. That's roughly three seconds of game time. And as a spell-like, that's the only thing it is in game terms: three seconds of the solar's supposedly immortal life.

I do not see how it could possibly be considered "involved" (i.e., "intricate and complex") in and of itself. Now, if the wizard that did the summoning then gets out a thirty-two page-all-bases-covered-and-loopholes-closed wish and proceeds to begin reading it, THEN I can see the wish being "involved," but that's got nothing to do with the terms of gate in and of itself.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-02-05, 10:05 AM

It's a standard action. That's roughly three seconds of game time. And as a spell-like, that's the only thing it is in game terms: three seconds of the solar's supposedly immortal life.

I do not see how it could possibly be considered "involved" (i.e., "intricate and complex") in and of itself. Now, if the wizard that did the summoning then gets out a thirty-two page-all-bases-covered-and-loopholes-closed wish and proceeds to begin reading it, THEN I can see the wish being "involved," but that's got nothing to do with the terms of gate in and of itself.

That's not the only definition for "involved." From websters
Involved adj. 2 implicated , affected, or committed

affected1 2 influenced; acted upon

Any term of service can be more involved because any term of service can have far-reaching consequences. The more powerful the effect, the further the consequences can reach, the more involved it is. The DM draws the line for where "involved" is divided from "more involved."

Answerer

2013-02-05, 10:08 AM

The target behaves as you desire because of a mind-affecting enchantment effect that has a duration of 1 day per point of charisma bonus. It's a hell of a lot more of a stretch to say that it's not ongoing mental control than it is to say it is.
Ongoing mental influence, not control. In meta terms, you'd have to tell your fanatical friend what you want him to do; he'd almost certainly do it, but you do not get to control his actions (i.e. take his turn) as you would with dominate.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-02-05, 10:11 AM

Ongoing mental influence, not control. In meta terms, you'd have to tell your fanatical friend what you want him to do; he'd almost certainly do it, but you do not get to control his actions (i.e. take his turn) as you would with dominate.

By that metric, magic circle can't block any charm effects at all.

None of them let you dictate every action the target takes.

Rogue Shadows

2013-02-05, 10:29 AM

None of them let you dictate every action the target takes.

Perhaps not, but a fanatical creature is certainly going to give heavy weight to every word you say.

That's not the only definition for "involved." From websters

If it's all the same to you, I'd rather use dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Involved?s=t), since among other things that site provides an actual definition and not synonyms.

in·volved
adjective
1. very intricate or complex: an involved reply.
2. implicated: involved in crime.
3. concerned in some affair, especially in a way likely to cause danger or unpleasantness: I didn't call the police because I didn't want to get involved.
4. committed or engaged, as in a political cause or artistic movement: The civil rights demonstration attracted the involved young people of the area.

Definitions 2 thru 4 are struck out because, simply put, the wording of gate transcends ambiguous and becomes outright nonsensical if we use them for gate:

"If you choose to exact a longer or more implicated form of service from a called creature, you must offer some fair trade in return for that service."

"If you choose to exact a longer or more concerned form of service from a called creature, you must offer some fair trade in return for that service."

"If you choose to exact a longer or more committed or engaged form of service from a called creature, you must offer some fair trade in return for that service."

The 3rd iteration is the only one that actually comes close to making any kind of grammatical sense (how can a form of service be concerned? It can be concerning, it can incite concern, but a form of service cannot itself be concerned; similarly a form of service can implicate but it cannot itself be implicated), but if we really want to go with that, then it's difficult to see how asking the solar to use its wish SLA - without regards for what the wish is, simply the activation of the SLA itself - could be considered to require the solar to become "more committed" than commanding it to fight a battle, which involves using SLAs and spells, swinging its sword, shouting warnings, grunting, flying, etc.

(we're, again, not going to assume anything about who it's fighting or who's summoning it or what their wish is going to actually be)

...great, this has become a battle between a Grammar Nazi and a Rules Lawyer. Well, at least I get a spiffy uniform designed by Hugo Boss. I wish to henceforth be address as "Oberscharführer."

In any event, since the use of involved can only mean its "complex" iteration or its "committed" iteration, and since using wish as an SLA is neither complex nor does it require more commitment than engaging in battle (during the course of which it might very well use its wish SLA anyway, and if it can use its wish SLA as part of a battle then gate'ing it in explicitly and exclusively to use its wish SLA cannot possibly require more commitment nor complexity), making a solar use its wish SLA as part of the terms of a gate (again, without regards for what the wish is, simply whether or not it can or will grant any at all) is well within the well within the limits of gate, QED.

Mnemnosyne

2013-02-05, 10:45 AM

If you assume the DM will play the angel as a hostile entity then he appears before you and starts swinging, since there's nothing in the spell description limiting the creature from taking actions not explicitly commanded. If you assume the DM plays the creature as indifferent it's very safe to assume the creature will take the command to lower its defenses as a hostile action and use its remaining actions to try and foil the assault it knows is coming.
Gate the subject in, the moment it appears use a free action to speak (which can take place at any time including during someone else's turn) and command it to "take no actions except those I specifically command." Until the duration of the gate's control is over, it's now incapable of attacking you, because not taking actions unless ordered to is definitely not an involved task. It also can't wish itself free of the gate's control or any other such thing.

However, it is plausible that it had a crafted contingent spell on it set to trigger whenever it's gated, to wish itself free of the compuslory control. This would be a reasonable way for a DM to prevent a player from screwing around with the spell; any creature with wish tends to use their wishes to create crafted contingent spells (which are items, and therefore can be wished for) that automatically free them upon being gated.

But, to suggest that a creature gated in with 3.5's version of Gate wording would attack you without somehow having a contingency to free itself is silly, since if that's a possibility, the caster has plenty of options to prevent it from happening simply by giving orders before the creature can act.

Answerer

2013-02-05, 11:14 AM

By that metric, magic circle can't block any charm effects at all.

None of them let you dictate every action the target takes.
That doesn't necessarily mean anything; they could have easily left the effect open enough to account for potential controlling-charms printed thereafter.

Still, I'll grant that's a pretty weak argument, which leaves the case fairly ambiguous. I feel that you cannot ignore the phrase "ongoing control" particularly coupled with the example of dominate person. I don't think that charm person or fanatic (which is basically just an Ex super-charm) qualify as "control," ongoing or otherwise. But it is awkward that they refer to Charm effects without any apparent examples of a Charm that would qualify.

I also notice that protection from evil uses the phrase "including" prior to that line, which also changes things. The phrase we really should analyze is "any attempt [...] to exercise mental control over the target," which is a lot broader. Still, the use of the term "control" makes me favor restricting things to Compulsions, since the description for Compulsions explicitly says "[s]ome compulsion spells [...] give you ongoing control over the subject," a perfect match to the wording used in protection from evil (though again in the parenthetical "including" clause).

From a purely game-design perspective, I'm not sure that it's a good thing for Enchantment to get nerfed that hard. I mean, protection from evil et al. are already a massive problem with an already-weak school; expanding it to include almost all Enchantments (basically any with a duration) is... not a good idea, in my mind. I'd rather fix the problem at the source (Diplomacy) than make a ruling as you suggest that has such significant side-effects.

nedz

2013-02-05, 11:18 AM

Perhaps not, but a fanatical creature is certainly going to give heavy weight to every word you say.

Probably — but I would expect Solars to be already fanatical about doing good. Such a result is going to lead to cognitive dissonance — the result of which is hard to predict, but will probably not lead to the action the Wizard requested.

Rogue Shadows

2013-02-05, 11:39 AM

Probably — but I would expect Solars to be already fanatical about doing good. Such a result is going to lead to cognitive dissonance — the result of which is hard to predict, but will probably not lead to the action the Wizard requested.

Depends on the action, but as a general rule I'd say that unless the action has obvious evil intent, the solar shouldn't ever find itself in conflict. A fanatic for good solar that is also a fanatic of a nonevil wizard that wants the solar to use wish to create, I dunno, a staff of command, has no logical reason to not create the staff, since the staff is not evil, the wizard is not evil, and the solar, as a fanatic, has no reason to question the intent of the wizard.

That's what being fanatic means: you don't ask questions.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-02-05, 12:25 PM

That doesn't necessarily mean anything; they could have easily left the effect open enough to account for potential controlling-charms printed thereafter.

Still, I'll grant that's a pretty weak argument, which leaves the case fairly ambiguous. I feel that you cannot ignore the phrase "ongoing control" particularly coupled with the example of dominate person. I don't think that charm person or fanatic (which is basically just an Ex super-charm) qualify as "control," ongoing or otherwise. But it is awkward that they refer to Charm effects without any apparent examples of a Charm that would qualify.

I also notice that protection from evil uses the phrase "including" prior to that line, which also changes things. The phrase we really should analyze is "any attempt [...] to exercise mental control over the target," which is a lot broader. Still, the use of the term "control" makes me favor restricting things to Compulsions, since the description for Compulsions explicitly says "[s]ome compulsion spells [...] give you ongoing control over the subject," a perfect match to the wording used in protection from evil (though again in the parenthetical "including" clause).

From a purely game-design perspective, I'm not sure that it's a good thing for Enchantment to get nerfed that hard. I mean, protection from evil et al. are already a massive problem with an already-weak school; expanding it to include almost all Enchantments (basically any with a duration) is... not a good idea, in my mind. I'd rather fix the problem at the source (Diplomacy) than make a ruling as you suggest that has such significant side-effects.I disagree. If protection from evil's blanket protection wasn't so inclusive enchantment would be entirely too powerful. Every major political player in every political arena where there are enough people around for spellcasters to be a concern would be under so many simultaneous enchantment effects he'd probably start to glow so brightly that you wouldn't even need detect magic to see it and any but the highest level casters would -always- be vulnerable to the enchantments of other, sometimes weaker, casters.

As it is, only clerics, sorcerers, wizards, and paladins; a tiny subset of the possible encounters a party might face; have ready access to the spell. These are exactly the kind of characters you -don't- want players gaining serious influence over on a regular basis (except probably the paladin), especially given that most enchantments don't put any kind of limit on how many targets you can affect at once.

Perhaps not, but a fanatical creature is certainly going to give heavy weight to every word you say.

If it's all the same to you, I'd rather use dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Involved?s=t), since among other things that site provides an actual definition and not synonyms.

Definitions 2 thru 4 are struck out because, simply put, the wording of gate transcends ambiguous and becomes outright nonsensical if we use them for gate:

"If you choose to exact a longer or more implicated form of service from a called creature, you must offer some fair trade in return for that service."

"If you choose to exact a longer or more concerned form of service from a called creature, you must offer some fair trade in return for that service."

"If you choose to exact a longer or more committed or engaged form of service from a called creature, you must offer some fair trade in return for that service."

The 3rd iteration is the only one that actually comes close to making any kind of grammatical sense (how can a form of service be concerned? It can be concerning, it can incite concern, but a form of service cannot itself be concerned; similarly a form of service can implicate but it cannot itself be implicated), but if we really want to go with that, then it's difficult to see how asking the solar to use its wish SLA - without regards for what the wish is, simply the activation of the SLA itself - could be considered to require the solar to become "more committed" than commanding it to fight a battle, which involves using SLAs and spells, swinging its sword, shouting warnings, grunting, flying, etc.

(we're, again, not going to assume anything about who it's fighting or who's summoning it or what their wish is going to actually be)

...great, this has become a battle between a Grammar Nazi and a Rules Lawyer. Well, at least I get a spiffy uniform designed by Hugo Boss. I wish to henceforth be address as "Oberscharführer."

In any event, since the use of involved can only mean its "complex" iteration or its "committed" iteration, and since using wish as an SLA is neither complex nor does it require more commitment than engaging in battle (during the course of which it might very well use its wish SLA anyway, and if it can use its wish SLA as part of a battle then gate'ing it in explicitly and exclusively to use its wish SLA cannot possibly require more commitment nor complexity), making a solar use its wish SLA as part of the terms of a gate (again, without regards for what the wish is, simply whether or not it can or will grant any at all) is well within the well within the limits of gate, QED.

unless I'm mistaken, webster's is dictionary.com so we're drawing our definitions from the same source. I'd've simply copy-pasted if I could but I have serious hardware limitations.

Also, how does definition 3 not fit?

nedz

2013-02-05, 12:37 PM

Depends on the action, but as a general rule I'd say that unless the action has obvious evil intent, the solar shouldn't ever find itself in conflict. A fanatic for good solar that is also a fanatic of a nonevil wizard that wants the solar to use wish to create, I dunno, a staff of command, has no logical reason to not create the staff, since the staff is not evil, the wizard is not evil, and the solar, as a fanatic, has no reason to question the intent of the wizard.

That's what being fanatic means: you don't ask questions.

Maybe, but that sounds neutral to me.

Ed: Why not give him a similar staff which is good aligned — a staff of command evil instead ? It meets both requirements.

Rogue Shadows

2013-02-05, 01:52 PM

Maybe, but that sounds neutral to me.

Which doesn't mean anything in and of itself. Good and evil aren't particularly well defined in D&D (but then, they aren't particularly well defined anywhere), but nothing in any of the "goods" suggests that a Good creature has any particular feelings towards or about neutral topics.

Shining Wrath

2013-02-05, 02:18 PM

Well, chain-gating Solars is most commonly used as an example of Epic spell DC mitigation, which takes a lot of time to develop. I believe the idea is that you order each new Solar to fail its save, Mindrape it, get it to prepare as many Gates as possible, and then start it on doing the Gating for you.

If I'm a DM, and your character Mindrapes a Solar ... well, depends on setting, but you might get to explain yourself to Pelor or Bahamut. In person. Kindly (re)acquaint yourself with Cotton Mather's Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God for how that might play out. A Solar is not just Some Guy.

Sith_Happens

2013-02-05, 02:25 PM

Talderas

2013-02-05, 04:42 PM

It does say that - unique creatures, such as PCs are due to having class levels, are not obligated to pass through a Gate that targets them.

Gate also says that a creature must be extraplanar to be subjected to the calling function of the gate. Extraplanar is a mutable subtype that is present on a creature only when it is not on its native plane.

So a solar on a good-aligned plane is not a valid target for the calling effect of gate since it does not currently have the extraplanar subtype since it is on a good-aligned plane. Therefore, the only solars (or any creature for that matter) that you can call with gate must not currently be residing on its home plane. The fact that the MM says they have the extraplanar subtype is because the setting is assumed to be taking place on the material plane and therefore the solar would have the extraplanar type when you encounter it on the material plane.

Raven777

2013-02-05, 04:48 PM

Gate also says that a creature must be extraplanar to be subjected to the calling function of the gate. Extraplanar is a mutable subtype that is present on a creature only when it is not on its native plane.

So a solar on a good-aligned plane is not a valid target for the calling effect of gate since it does not currently have the extraplanar subtype since it is on a good-aligned plane. Therefore, the only solars (or any creature for that matter) that you can call with gate must not currently be residing on its home plane. The fact that the MM says they have the extraplanar subtype is because the setting is assumed to be taking place on the material plane and therefore the solar would have the extraplanar type when you encounter it on the material plane.

Pretty sure Extraplanar is defined from a Material Plane perspective. Or in other words, a Solar walking around Celestia counts as Extraplanar for the purpose of a Gate cast from the Material Plane.

Talderas

2013-02-05, 04:56 PM

Pretty sure Extraplanar is defined from a Material Plane perspective. Or in other words, a Solar walking around Celestia counts as Extraplanar for the purpose of a Gate cast from the Material Plane.

Extraplanar is a defined subtype within D&D and gate's description references it as a type of creature that can be called through it. For the purposes of a monster manual the extraplanar subtype is applied to any creature whose home plane is not the material plane because the book is assuming you encounter it on the material plane. It explicitly calls out that it loses that subtype when it is on its home plane. You can still call a solar if one isn't present on a good aligned plane, but to use the spell as you are describing would require that the creature have the extraplanar subtype one the spell is completed casting rather than during targeting. It would also mean you can't call any specific entity that is on its home plane.

Shining Wrath

2013-02-05, 05:01 PM

Obvious point which people seem to be missing here in discussion of what you can get a Solar to do once Gated:

A Solar is not just some random extraplanar. A Solar is a very important person ... in Heaven.

D20SRD
Angels are a race of celestials, beings who live on the good-aligned Outer Planes.

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.

... SNIP ...

Abilities: Str 28, Dex 20, Con 20, Int 23, Wis 25, Cha 25

... SNIP ...

Solars are puissant champions of good. Only the most powerful fiends approach their power.

In other words, these immortal creatures are some of the most powerful good-aligned creatures you are likely to run into. If you summon a creature with 23 INT and 25 WIS, I hereby rule on behalf of all DM's throughout the space-time continuum that they will be at least a little curious as to why. And being immortal and unsleeping, they will probably take the time to satisfy their curiosity.

Take advantage of a Solar to do something contrary to their extremely high moral standards, and you may well regret it.

Oh, and gate in a Balor or Pit Fiend to do something contrary to their extremely low moral standards, or that offends their infernal pride, or that annoys them slightly, and you may well regret it. One has to presume that evil beings are somewhat more likely to seek revenge because forgiveness and patience with mortals are not virtues in their books.

HMS Invincible

2013-02-05, 05:42 PM

Phelix-Mu

2013-02-05, 07:11 PM

So, to return to an earlier point, I want to discuss how the 20th level wizard can go to some other plane than the origin plane of party member B and then gate party member B in and compel service for 1 round/level. This goes on the assumption that the general consensus earlier in the thread that only one-of-a-kind creatures, like the tarrasque, are "unique," and that most mortals don't qualify, nor do creatures with class levels.

While the utility here isn't immediately apparent, it has strong damage control implications for evil parties or parties where the wizard is secretly evil/not good (surprising how often that crops up...).

Or, moreover, the lich BBEG can just go to the astral plane, bring an orphan, gate in the party paladin, order the paladin to kill the orphan, paladin loses powers, lich kills paladin. Rinse, repeat until all the enemies are dead.

Similar badness seems to occur against enemies of the party that has a wizard/sorcerer with gate. If you can summon your enemy and compel them to do something stupid ("Mr. Lich, tell me where your phylactery is," "Mr. Wizard, give me your spellbooks, now start wasting your spells") that totally gimps their abilities, then the spell is even more wildly unbalanced than I imagined.

Vaz

2013-02-05, 07:39 PM

While you guys are spending all this time preventing infinite wishes for a wizard's personal greed, make sure it's consistent with the original purpose of Gate. Combining planar binding, summon monster, and planeshift magic into a multipurpose spell. You know we don't get this flak from summon monster X, why are you bringing it up with gate? From what I'm hearing, it's Gate shouldn't be used as summon monster X, only planar binding. If I cared about PETA for outer planes, I'd play a barbarian.

We all know that infinite solars are strong, but they only last 17 rounds. If the player needed that many solars, having 1 spare wish at the end isn't important in the grand scheme of things. If you really cared, either limit gate like PF did, or just keep track of how many solars there are. They'll learn really quick not to spam it when they see them on the endangered species list.

They have a Wish ability. Wish for a Scroll of Gate. Gate in a Noble Djinni.

Wish for two Scrolls of Gate, and a fully charged ring of three wishes. Rinse and repeat. That gives you theoretically infinite anythings; including Pit Fiends. What you do with them is entirely up to you especially if thy are more morally ambiguous/less intelligent.

Another way is to make you own. Gate in, request a lock of hair, Simulacrum, Mind Rape, make an item based off Fusion made permanent, and you now have 20th Cleric Casting, 17th (minimum) other casting, DR/Epic, huge ability scores general, it is yours true and forever, and its Wish and other Spelllikes are now directly under your control. And since you can continue to make Simulacrum every day, and you can fuse with them too.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-02-06, 05:57 AM

Pretty sure that whether something is a "more involved" task is irrelevant as long as it's also an "immediate task," which does have a specific definition and calls for no payment needed regardless of other factors.

That doesn't follow. Given the description's use of the phrase, "If you choose to exact a longer or more involved form of service from a called creature, ..." a more invovled task can take the same or less time than an immediate task.

@whoever mentioned ethical treatment of the called creatures:

I don't give a flying fig about ethics in this situation. What bugs me is people willfully choosing the most favorable interpretation of ambiguous RAW in-spite of the impact it has on game balance and pretending it's crystal clear and inviolable RAW. Further, they're also ignoring the fact that the only distinction between a PC and an NPC is who's in controll of it.

Rogue Shadows

2013-02-06, 08:58 AM

Further, they're also ignoring the fact that the only distinction between a PC and an NPC is who's in controll of it.

It's a pretty big distinction, dude.

Talderas

2013-02-06, 09:16 AM

It's a pretty big distinction, dude.

As far as the rules are concerned, there is no difference between a PC and an NPC. There aren't spells or effects (and if they exist they shouldn't) that have an effect which treats PCs and NPCs differently. As Kelb said, the only difference is who is controlling their actions which is nothing more than a meta-game issue.

Story

2013-02-06, 10:43 AM

PCs are immune to Diplomacy.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-02-06, 10:54 AM

PCs are immune to Diplomacy.

And this is the single solitary difference between PC's and NPC's within the rules.

The only other thing that might be considerable is that classed NPC's have a different WBL table that a DM -may- use.

Lord_Gareth

2013-02-06, 10:56 AM

And this is the single solitary difference between PC's and NPC's within the rules.

The only other thing that might be considerable is that classed NPC's have a different WBL table that a DM -may- use.

Well, that and PCs can gain roleplaying experience.

Talderas

2013-02-06, 10:57 AM

PCs are immune to Diplomacy.

They are not immune to it. There just aren't rules written for using Diplomacy against PCs. As Kelb said, it's the solitary exclusion and it's an exclusion solely for meta-game reasons.

Phelix-Mu

2013-02-06, 11:05 AM

I'm like two steps away from just making gate into the ideal transport spell plus an option for a summon monster ix effect or a greater planar ally effect. Or some such designed to make it conserve a spell slot between summoning and transport among 9th level spells. I'd have to closely look at greater planar ally before making the change. I'd nerf it right down to summon monster ix, but that removes a lot of utility from casters willing to make a contract.

Personally, if I were a high level caster, I would always call and make a contract for a more involved goal. Providing an equitable, yet valuable, service to whomever you call should be fairly easy for a high level caster, and it allows the caster to move beyond the master-slave relationship of the short term service and actually turn the summoned creature (be sure to ask that solar for its name) into a contact. Over the course of a campaign, especially one going past 20th, gate can be used to cement a concrete relationship with a specific ally that is sympathetic to the caster and the party goals.

I'd much rather have some solars on my twitter feed and facebook page than be blackballed generally by celestials for compelling distasteful or immoral service. Same goes for all calling; with the range of creatures available for calling, why call on one that is going to not be interested in helping you? Offer something in exchange to a sympathetic creature ("hey mr. balor, how would you like some deep-fried orphans?") and forget about the limited service version of the spell. That will be my suggestion to my players, in any case.

hymer

2013-02-06, 11:05 AM

Phelix-Mu

2013-02-06, 11:18 AM

PCs generally have to follow certain rules for generating their stats, while different rules may well apply to NPCs.
Action points are for PCs only, unless you get them via feat.
NPCs generally don't gain XP.

So there are certain deviations from that 'NPCs and PCs are treated the same', but I think I see what you mean.

My npcs that are in the campaign for any length of time and actually adventuring level up as normal for non-retired creatures with class levels. If an npc played a significant role in an encounter in which experience points were earned, then the npcs gets a share of the total experience. No free help.

It would be really weird if pcs were the only ones for whom hard work and experience lead to increased powers. Moreover, the pcs probably needed some kind of conceptual role model to indicate that adventuring was a way to further one's goals and improve one's skills, and such role models would probably have been npcs.

NPCs and PCs are basically equivalent. Diplomacy doesn't compel behavior from the target; the npc can still hate you if they really want, just be inclined to act in a more reasonable manner (cognitive dissonance, to be sure, but that is how it works). NPC attitudes are pretty much solely in the realm of DM adjudication, in the end. Diplomacy just allows the players to tip the scales toward the characters' favor.

Likewise for the NPCs using Diplomacy on PCs. The NPC succeeds hugely, and all the DM can say is "Well, you are free to think what you want, but this npc seems very reasonable. You are inclined to listen to what s/he has to say." Since the players still determine the attitude of their character, the impact of npcs using the skill is all but negligible. This is how I implement the skill, in any case.

Story

2013-02-06, 11:20 AM

Well Action points are alternate rule (outside of Eberron), so it's more likely to be houseruled anyway. For example, one suggestion I saw is that PCs can use as many as they want within reason, but the NPCs get one every time they do, to be used at a dramatic moment later. The PCs get to be awesome and the DM gets to keep their recurring villain alive and let it escape properly.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-02-06, 11:20 AM

Well, that and PCs can gain roleplaying experience.

PCs generally have to follow certain rules for generating their stats, while different rules may well apply to NPCs.
Action points are for PCs only, unless you get them via feat.
NPCs generally don't gain XP.

So there are certain deviations from that 'NPCs and PCs are treated the same', but I think I see what you mean.

Where is it written that NPC's don't gain XP? Just because it happens behind the curtain as a result of usually being irrelevant to the meta-game doesn't mean they don't gain xp and level up the same way PC's do. They overcome challenges in their day-to-day lives, those challenges are simply much more mundane and typically less difficult, which leads to such characters leveling much slower and most of the world being under level 5; just like the demographics table in the DMG suggests.

EDIT: Come to think of it, there's at least one instance of NPC's explicitly gaining XP; leadership. The cohort gains a portion of the XP for encounters just like a PC would, albeit in a lesser amount.

hymer

2013-02-06, 11:26 AM

Kelb_Panthera

2013-02-06, 11:41 AM

@ Phelix-Mu: I guess most DMs do it that way, with XP I mean. But most XP given to NPCs, I expect, is given when they're being created - XP is basically ignored for NPCs. It's rarely awarded due to overcoming challenges, it's just given by DM adjudication based on what s/he wants the NPC to be able to do.

Now we're at it, WBL is a divergent PC/NPC effect too.

@ Kelb: Come on, do you really feel the game treats PCs and NPCs the same with regards to XP? There is no given rule for giving PCs XP out of the blue, unless you want them to start at a higher level. But there's advice that you level NPCs with the PCs, where you basically hand out XP to them for no other reason than they need to stay near the PCs.

Sure there is; the afformentioned roleplaying XP.

The reason that XP for NPC's is ignored for the most part is that it would be incredibly tedious to actually have to track each and every thing that happened to an important NPC that allowed him to keep up with the party in terms of XP; especially when you have to do so for every important NPC that needs to keep up when they may or may not be involved with one another in any way. The advice is, "don't keep track of it because it's not necessary to making the game enjoyable," not "ignore it because it doesn't happen."

hymer

2013-02-06, 11:45 AM

Sure there is; the afformentioned roleplaying XP.

Eh? What were you replying to there?

Anyway, the instance with Leadership is another case where XP rules are shown to be different for PCs compared to NPC, isn't it? But fine with me if we say we disagree on the XP part. There's still quite a few cases where PCs and NPCs are treated differently by the rules.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-02-06, 11:51 AM

The instance with Leadership is another case where XP rules are shown to be different from PCs, isn't it?. But fine with me if we say we disagree on the XP part. There's still quite a few cases where PCs and NPCs are treated differently by the rules.

WBL, vulnerability to diplomacy, and -maybe- XP, PC's can't be of animal intelligence or mindless. Did I miss anything?

These are all meta-game functions and have nothing at all to do with how the two interact with one another. They're differences that exist for the people around the gaming table, not the creatures in the game world.

Phelix-Mu

2013-02-06, 11:53 AM

So I think we've established that the difference b/t pcs and npcs is in the realm of the metagame, stuff that is not directly definable by RAW. Another good example of this being clear is that pcs can become npcs (and often do), and it's not inconceivable that a DM pass control of an npc to a player, meaning it becomes a pc.

How was this relevant? *searching post history*

Right, the solar is an npc! Or w/e monster is summoned. Alright, so, to be sure, any critter can become an npc as soon as the pcs distinguish the individual from all the other creatures of a similar nature. That lion is a lion, even when summoned by SNA, but maybe it is a particular lion, if the druid wants to befriend it. Granted, the next SNA summons another random lion, so no chance to catch up with Richard the Lion[hearted], but that lion was a specific lion.

Now, differences between individual critters is usually only relevant for creatures that have higher intelligence than animals, but there are all kinds of ways in-game to designate an individual creature as such. The key and best way to so designate is A NAME. Anything that has a name is pretty much some kind of npc, as now the DM is within rights to give it a specific personality, slightly difference appearance, personal history, etc, and a good DM that feels it's pertinent should be ready to supply this info to the players if it comes up. (If it comes up, it's automatically pertinent.)

Suggestion that the generals of celestial armies are faceless and generic is silly. By RAW, as I mentioned before, each celestial can have a varying set of Knowledge skills, meaning that there isn't a "generic" solar, rather each must be customized by the DM. If the DM spent each solar's skills differently, he is well within rights to give them names to help him keep track, deities served, personal MOs, and contingent spells that prevent them from being compelled to act in a manner unbecoming.

killem2

2013-02-06, 12:19 PM

I would call wish something more involved that requires a contract.

RUBBISH!

Make the player take a real 6 seconds to write what they want (or type it), and give it to you and that is the result.

:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

I feel sorry for that player though haha.

hymer

2013-02-06, 12:27 PM

@ Kelb: Well, action points. But regardless I like what you're saying now a lot more than I liked
the only distinction between a PC and an NPC is who's in controll of it.

Always be careful with sweeping generalizations, annoying people like me can't stop our nitpicking tendencies so easily.
As I've said before, I agree with you in this thread in general. It's just that part which rings false to me.

Darius Kane

2013-02-06, 12:43 PM

I don't give a flying fig about ethics in this situation. What bugs me is people willfully choosing the most favorable interpretation of ambiguous RAW in-spite of the impact it has on game balance and pretending it's crystal clear and inviolable RAW.
Isn't that, like, the definition of TO?

Pickford

2013-02-06, 01:14 PM

Because gating in a Solar nets you the most benefits - high level spellcasting, imposing personal power, the ability to gate more Solars in for free, Wishes, etc, etc.

Except you don't strictly speaking control the Solar once your request is made.

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.
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. The service exacted must be reasonable with respect to the promised favor or reward; see the lesser planar ally spell for appropriate rewards. (Some creatures may want their payment in "livestock" rather than in coin, which could involve complications.) Immediately upon completion of the service, the being is transported to your vicinity, and you must then and there turn over the promised reward. After this is done, the creature is instantly freed to return to its own plane.
Failure to fulfill the promise to the letter results in your being subjected to service by the creature or by its leige and master, the the very least. At worst, the creature or its kin may attack you.

The creature called requires a payment for its services. This payment can take a variety of forms, from donating gold or magic items to an allied temple, to a gift given directly to the creature, to some other action on your part that matches the creature's alignment and goals. Regardless, this payment must be made before the creature agrees to perform any services. The bargaining takes at least 1 round, so any actions by the creature begin in the round after it arrives.
A task taking up to 1 minute per caster level requires a payment of 100 gp per HD of the creature called. For a task taking up to 1 hour per caster level, the creature requires a payment of 500 gp per HD. A long-term task, one requiring up to one day per caster level, requires a paymenof 1,000 gp per HD.
A nonhazardous task requires only half the indicated payment, while an especially hazardous task might require a greater gift. Few if any creatures will accept a task that seems suicidal (remember, a called creature actually dies when it is killed, unlike a summoned creature). However, if the task is strongly aligned with the creature's ethos, the DM may halve or even waive the payment. For instance, a celestial creature called to battle demons might require a gift of only half the normal value.

Here's why chain-gating either entirely impossible, or nigh impossible or just not worth it.

1a) Gate allows a single service. Telling a Solar to gate in another Solar is a single service. Telling that original Solar to 'also' command the gated Solar to 'do' anything is a second service. Being a single service, once the second Solar is gated in, the second Solar would be free to depart. However, the 2nd called Solar may be ordered to kill you before it does as the 2nd Solar is not under your control at all, it's under the control of the caster (Solar1).
1b) If you just order Solar1 to fight for you, then that's it, you're not able give specific orders beyond that, as it would constitute multiple services.

Edit: Solar's don't have Gate on their spell-list, so it would always be a more involved service if you wanted them to forget a spell, rest a day, and 'then' ask for gate to cast. Each additional Solar would require a day to try and pull off these shenanigans even assuming you could do it. Which you can't (see below).

2) Let's assume you go for the more involved service, because you 'really really really' want to see many solars show up. Solar1 would never agree to your terms. Ever. Casting Gate would cost it XP because it's not a spell-like ability. Even if that weren't a problem, the Solar controls whatever it Gates in, not you. So Solar1 would be required to pay Solar2 for any involved service (which bringing yet another Solar in would be). Failure to pay means indentured servitude which is textbook hazardous and so would require a payment of at least 23,000gp in value (depending on the HD of the solar this could go as high as 66,000gp).

So now Solar2 is there. Unless your bargaining with Solar1 involved a contract a mile long specifying days/years of servitude, Solar1 demands payment, immediately (and possible in cattle in which case you are SoL) and then both Solar's depart from whence they came. You're not out a Gate spell, the battle you were summoning Solar's for has been over for at least a day, and if you failed to pay you're busy knitting in the high heavens or forced to assist in fighting Demons/Devils.

Vaz

2013-02-06, 01:54 PM

You don't. You Wish for a scroll of Gate, and Gate in a Noble Djanni, which grants three wishes AND can order it to do something.

Talderas

2013-02-06, 01:58 PM

You don't. You Wish for a scroll of Gate, and Gate in a Noble Djanni, which grants three wishes AND can order it to do something.

So you're gating in a solar to wish for a scroll of gate. That seems pointless. Why not gate the Noble Djanni in the first place?

Vaz

2013-02-06, 02:14 PM

Because then the Djanni is under the control of the Solar, who can just Wish you to the 9 hells for wasting its time.

Request a scroll, Gate in the Djanni, command it to do something, wish for 3 more scrolls of gate then release it, use 2 scrolls to gate in a solar each and the third to gate in a Noble Djanni, rinse and repeat ad infinitim until you have all the scrolls of gate you ever need, then 1/round gate in a Solar and throw themselves at the enemy until they cry.

Considering you are usually fighting evil monsters, though, a Pit Fiend is usually better able to fight them as it has Regen against all but Good aligned Silver Weapons, and you can just buff with Align Weapon. Shabam.

Flickerdart

2013-02-06, 02:27 PM

Because then the Djanni is under the control of the Solar, who can just Wish you to the 9 hells for wasting its time.
No, no. The point is that you can use the gate that you cast to gate in the genie instead of making the Solar do it. Then you can wish for three scrolls of gate and gate in three genies, etc.

Talderas

2013-02-06, 02:31 PM

No, no. The point is that you can use the gate that you cast to gate in the genie instead of making the Solar do it. Then you can wish for three scrolls of gate and gate in three genies, etc.

I think he was saying you wish in a solar in order to gate yourself a scroll of wish. Which you then use to wish forth a genie that you use to gate you 3 more scrolls of wish.

charcoalninja

2013-02-06, 02:46 PM

Not sure if this has been mentioned, but you can't compell a Solar to do anything it doesn't want to do. They're immune to any sort of compulsion due to their constant magic circle against evil effect. So though Solar's are great for all their super powers and such but I think most people gloss over this fact.

Phelix-Mu

2013-02-06, 02:46 PM

So you're gating in a solar to wish for a scroll of gate. That seems pointless. Why not gate the Noble Djanni in the first place?

I assume because you enjoy watching powerful beings kowtow to you every whim.

"Hello, Mr. Balor. Please rescue the orphans. Thank you."

EDIT: A whole series of posts described the precise limitations of the magic circle protection of solars. Diplomancer was invoked. I think Kelb had the first post to bring this up, some pages back. As far as I'm concerned, every solar should have protections against said manipulation prepared in advance, but since I wouldn't want to completely negate this function of the spell just because I thought it overpowered, I'd probably have the solar show up willing to help THE FIRST TIME. Then on with wrath of heaven and if abusive behavior should follow, subsequent blackballing of caster among celestials via contingent dismissal upon being called by said caster, etc.

Talderas

2013-02-06, 02:54 PM

I assume because you enjoy watching powerful beings kowtow to you every whim.

"Hello, Mr. Balor. Please rescue the orphans. Thank you."

Wizard Parent: Kids! Shut up or you'll regret it!
Kids: NO! Na na na na boo boo!
Wizard Parent: That's it!
*wizard casts gate and summons a Balor*
Wizard Parent: Mister Balor, I wish to engage in a contract with you. You may take each of my children that you cast Insanity on.

Anzyr

2013-02-06, 03:08 PM

Phelix-Mu

2013-02-06, 03:27 PM

Gate (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/gate.htm) please show me where this says [Mind-affecting] or (Compulsion).

And even if it did have those descriptors, I'm not 100% clear on magic circle v evil blocking commands that fall somewhere into the grey area between good or evil, as many such commands are bound to do. For instance, a CN wizard asks for a powerful magical sword via wish SLA from the solar, it would be reasonable for the solar to assume that no good may come of giving the sword to said caster, but I don't think the solar's defenses protect it from obeying this command.

Anyway, I am once again struck by lack of actual rules lawyers over at WotC when they were writing this stuff. Even without hindsight 20/20, I could have told the writers that this spell description was wanting, and pointed out that the area of "or taking any other actions that can be accomplished within 1 round per caster level counts as an immediate task" as the jumbo shrimp of poorly defined. A solar can accomplish just about anything in that amount of time, though whether you can phrase very complicated stuff into an "immediate service" is unclear. Taking time to phrase your command may give the solar time to do w/e it pleases, including leaving. That said, you can usually get off a pretty precise speech as a free action or series of free actions.

HMS Invincible

2013-02-06, 03:28 PM

Didn't we mention that we prefer solars to balors and pit fiends because balors are such jerks? Asking demanding a solar to beat up that horde of dragons has very few downsides. Calling in a balor and pit fiend means they're gonna be pissed for being forced to do "good".

On the side, calling and any planar binding should be known for what it is, kidnapping and temporary slavery. It's all about how nice and professional you plan to be. Being nice is a fool's errand when you bind evil or neutral creatures, only might and cunning matter. While binding good creatures, you should be professional, or don't do it at all. However, just because they're good doesn't mean you should be lax. An angel will rip you off if it can get away with it. Compare casting summon monster x vs calling in a celestial creature. The monster does what you say, as best as it can, and then goes home. The celestial creature starts off demanding not just gold, but services that belong to its portfolio, wasting your time and even more gold.
If you think an agent of good won't rip you off, try planar binding in any celestial creature, offer the contract "I offer you the chance to battle evil for 2 weeks (or days equal to my caster level), there is no payment except the joy of defeating evil."
According to the rules, you'll get no bonus to the CHA check, maybe +2 if the DM is nice. That's bs that you can't get a supposedly good being to help you against evil more than 50% of the time.

Answerer

2013-02-06, 03:45 PM

My initial answer was certainly that for most parties and most goals, the solar is probably the source of wish-as-SLA most likely to agree with the use and not object to the call.

Phelix-Mu

2013-02-06, 03:51 PM

If you think an agent of good won't rip you off, try planar binding in any celestial creature, offer the contract "I offer you the chance to battle evil for 2 weeks (or days equal to my caster level), there is no payment except the joy of defeating evil."
According to the rules, you'll get no bonus to the CHA check, maybe +2 if the DM is nice. That's bs that you can't get a supposedly good being to help you against evil more than 50% of the time.

Compelling service of the type that the creature is likely already engaged in, without allowing it to perform it's normal obligations (mission for deity, caring for the sick, generally acting as it sees fit), and expecting it to work for free doing something for you, it's all a bit of a stretch.

If I kidnap a pizza maker and ask him to do what he does, make pizzas, but do it for free, since pizza-making is his bliss or w/e, even if it is his bliss, you can hardly expect this to be an effective approach. Compelling service from creatures that owe you no allegiance or duty is probably going to be met with skepticism close to 100% of the time.

Consider if some extraplanar being gated in your wizard and then asked the wizard to contractually agree to perform some task that the wizard would probably normally be up to, but with no payment aside from the joy of doing wizard shtick, would the wizard be inclined to serve?

How about if the DM railroads the party along a plotline? How responsive are intelligent creatures when we treat their free will and self-determination as toys or convenient oddities?

strider24seven

2013-02-06, 04:43 PM

That doesn't follow. Given the description's use of the phrase, "If you choose to exact a longer or more involved form of service from a called creature, ..." a more invovled task can take the same or less time than an immediate task.

Actually it kind of does. Let's try this again, with feeling:

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.

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.

A task can have one of two possibilities:
1) Immediate task- taking less than CL rounds
2) Contractual Service- longer or more involved

This is a binary status- a task cannot simultaneously be both immediate and contractual srevice

Since no specific definition is given for contractual service, then we must check to see first whether a task is immediate. If it is not immediate, then it must be contractual service, i.e. it must be longer or more involved (although whether it is longer or more involved is irrelevant).

If a task takes less than CL rounds, then it is an immediate task by definition, and therefore cannot be contractual service. So if a given task can be completed in less than CL rounds, then it does not require additional payment.

Let us return to the Wish argument:
Wish as a Spell-Like Ability takes 1 standard action to cast. Therefore it can be completed in less than CL rounds, assuming your CL is greater than 0. Therefore, asking a Solar to use Wish on your behalf is an immediate task and requires no payment.

I'm afraid that the RAW is not very ambiguous here at all (for once); it is actually quite clear- you can simply put an ad on the interplanar Craigslist for a Solar, Gate her in, and then get a Wish. Alternatively you can just ask her to lower her spell resistance (optional) and fail her next save against your next spell and cast Mindrape, netting you one wish per day.

Now, this is of course TO and probably won't be allowed at most tables, although I have seen it done.

Phelix-Mu

2013-02-06, 04:55 PM

I believe the dispute is not so much can you gate something and compel whatever you want within the given time period, but whether a creature that is powerful enough to have taken precautions against being gated for immoral or selfish purposes would have taken said precautions.

As per the OP, not so much are solars gateable, but why is it a good choice. As per what several people have noted, it's not as good a choice as RAW might suggest, since manipulating the generals of celestial armies for the wrong reasons is likely to backfire in epic fashion, resulting in AT LEAST it being a one-time tactical option. The next time you try this trick on a solar, it shouldn't work.

Mindraping a solar should be seen in the same light as mindraping the child of a god. Poor life choice.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-02-06, 05:19 PM

Actually it kind of does. Let's try this again, with feeling:

A task can have one of two possibilities:
1) Immediate task- taking less than CL rounds
2) Contractual Service- longer or more involved

This is a binary status- a task cannot simultaneously be both immediate and contractual srevice

Since no specific definition is given for contractual service, then we must check to see first whether a task is immediate. If it is not immediate, then it must be contractual service, i.e. it must be longer or more involved (although whether it is longer or more involved is irrelevant).

If a task takes less than CL rounds, then it is an immediate task by definition, and therefore cannot be contractual service. So if a given task can be completed in less than CL rounds, then it does not require additional payment.

Let us return to the Wish argument:
Wish as a Spell-Like Ability takes 1 standard action to cast. Therefore it can be completed in less than CL rounds, assuming your CL is greater than 0. Therefore, asking a Solar to use Wish on your behalf is an immediate task and requires no payment.

I'm afraid that the RAW is not very ambiguous here at all (for once); it is actually quite clear- you can simply put an ad on the interplanar Craigslist for a Solar, Gate her in, and then get a Wish. Alternatively you can just ask her to lower her spell resistance (optional) and fail her next save against your next spell and cast Mindrape, netting you one wish per day.

Now, this is of course TO and probably won't be allowed at most tables, although I have seen it done.

Mr. Clinton, are you actually debating the meaning of the word "or"?

An immediate task is any task that can be completed within (cl) rounds unless it's "more involved."

For your interpretation to be correct the beginning of the latter paragraph should read "If you choose to exact a longer service..." or "If you choose to exact a longer and more involved service..." or "If you choose to exact a longer, more involved service...." but not "If you choose to exact a longer or more involved service..."

Pretending that the "or" in that sentence is meaningless is ignoring both RAW and basic english grammar. It creates a distincntion between "longer" and "more involved."

If all contractual service is automatically longer than an immediate task then there's no need to create such a distinction. Either "longer" or "more involved" is redundant and shouldn't have been included in the text, meaning the text is grammatically incorrect for expressing your interpretation.

If, on the other hand, the distinction exists deliberately because contractual service is divided into two sub-sets of service, "contractual->longer" and "contractual->more involved," where "more involved" is differentiated from "longer" by being independent of the immediate task time-frame that "longer" refers to, then the sentence makes perfect grammatic sense.

strider24seven

2013-02-06, 06:07 PM

Mr. Clinton, are you actually debating the meaning of the word "or"?

An immediate task is any task that can be completed within (cl) rounds unless it's "more involved."

For your interpretation to be correct the beginning of the latter paragraph should read "If you choose to exact a longer service..." or "If you choose to exact a longer and more involved service..." or "If you choose to exact a longer, more involved service...." but not "If you choose to exact a longer or more involved service..."

Pretending that the "or" in that sentence is meaningless is ignoring both RAW and basic english grammar. It creates a distincntion between "longer" and "more involved."

If all contractual service is automatically longer than an immediate task then there's no need to create such a distinction. Either "longer" or "more involved" is redundant and shouldn't have been included in the text, meaning the text is grammatically incorrect for expressing your interpretation.

If, on the other hand, the distinction exists deliberately because contractual service is divided into two sub-sets of service, "contractual->longer" and "contractual->more involved," where "more involved" is differentiated from "longer" by being independent of the immediate task time-frame that "longer" refers to, then the sentence makes perfect grammatic sense.

I direct you, yet again, to the text of the spell:

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.

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.

There are two mutually exclusive subsets of tasks: immediate and contractual.

Immediate tasks are defined as:

Fighting for you in a single battle or taking any other actions that can be accomplished within 1 round per caster level
Your definition is incorrect:

An immediate task is any task that can be completed within (cl) rounds unless it's "more involved."
The bolded portion is completely fictitious and exists nowhere in the contents of the spell text.

In fact, the contrapositive is true. According to the actual text of the spell, a contractual task is implied as any task that is not an immediate task, which is clarified as "longer or more involved." The authors provide no specific definition for a contractual task other than that is "longer or more involved" than an immediate task- something for which they provide a very specific definition: a task that takes less than or CL rounds. Therefore one determines a contractual task by determining first that is not an immediate task.

The "or" in "longer or more involved" serves to distinguish between whether the task simply takes longer than CL rounds or involves several linked tasks that together take longer than CL rounds. However, when determining whether or not a task is contractual in the first place, the "or" is, in fact, irrelevant- since it matters not how it differs from an immediate task, only that does.

charcoalninja

2013-02-06, 06:08 PM

Gate (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/gate.htm) please show me where this says [Mind-affecting] or (Compulsion).

From protection from evil:

This spell wards a creature from attacks by evil creatures, from mental control, and from summoned creatures. It creates a magical barrier around the subject at a distance of 1 foot. The barrier moves with the subject and has three major effects.

First, the subject gains a +2 deflection bonus to AC and a +2 resistance bonus on saves. Both these bonuses apply against attacks made or effects created by evil creatures.

Second, the barrier blocks any attempt to possess the warded creature (by a magic jar attack, for example) or to exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment (charm) effects and enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject, such as dominate person). The protection does not prevent such effects from targeting the protected creature, but it suppresses the effect for the duration of the protection from evil effect. If the protection from evil effect ends before the effect granting mental control does, the would-be controller would then be able to mentally command the controlled creature. Likewise, the barrier keeps out a possessing life force but does not expel one if it is in place before the spell is cast. This second effect works regardless of alignment.

Third, the spell prevents bodily contact by summoned creatures. This causes the natural weapon attacks of such creatures to fail and the creatures to recoil if such attacks require touching the warded creature. Good summoned creatures are immune to this effect. The protection against contact by summoned creatures ends if the warded creature makes an attack against or tries to force the barrier against the blocked creature. Spell resistance can allow a creature to overcome this protection and touch the warded creature.

Relevant section highlighted. The Prot from evil and such chain doesn't care about the alignment of the possessor, nor does it care about descriptors. Those are included beyond simply stopping mental control. A creature like a solar that is continuously under the effects of magic circle and the like is immune to any sort of mental control. Now diplomancing them into believing what they're doing is a good thing is completely different, as that's not mental control but great PR.

EDIT: just read the posts where this was brought up. All is said about this that needs to be, I won't harp on the magic circle fact further.

Additionally, I vote Solars as being the most popular simply because they're the strongest critter around. Fiends for whatever reason don't get decent casting and instead have generally meh spell likes. While the Solar, a few CR higher, has among the best SLAs in the book plus 20th level cleric casting. Hell in most settings a Solar has enough personal power to be considered a god in its own right.

Anzyr

2013-02-06, 07:24 PM

Kelb_Panthera

2013-02-06, 08:58 PM

I direct you, yet again, to the text of the spell:

There are two mutually exclusive subsets of tasks: immediate and contractual.

Immediate tasks are defined as:

Your definition is incorrect:

The bolded portion is completely fictitious and exists nowhere in the contents of the spell text. The bolded portion is the result of the phrasing of the text for contractual service.

In fact, the contrapositive is true. According to the actual text of the spell, a contractual task is implied as any task that is not an immediate task, which is clarified as "longer or more involved." The authors provide no specific definition for a contractual task other than that is "longer or more involved" than an immediate task- something for which they provide a very specific definition: a task that takes less than or CL rounds. Therefore one determines a contractual task by determining first that is not an immediate task.
The meaning of "immediate" had to be defined in the rules text. If it had not been then it could be argued that any service that took more than a swift action to execute could be considered a contractual service and there would be no implication that the spell could be used as what is effectively summon monster 10, which the inclusion of the specific example of doing combat, the duration of an immediate task, and the lack of an associated gp cost clearly shows was intended.

Also, the definition for an immediate task is not at all specific. "Fighting for you in a single battle or taking any other actions that can be accomplished within 1 round per caster level..." is far too broad to consider a specific definiton, especially given that combat -can- take longer than 1 round/CL under the right circumstances even though use of the word "other" in that phrase clearly indicates that combat is assumed to always fit within that time-frame. There are numerous tasks that could fall on either side of that line depending on the circumstances surrounding the task; finding a hidden item within the same room that the creature is called for example.

The "or" in "longer or more involved" serves to distinguish between whether the task simply takes longer than CL rounds or involves several linked tasks that together take longer than CL rounds. However, when determining whether or not a task is contractual in the first place, the "or" is, in fact, irrelevant- since it matters not how it differs from an immediate task, only that does.

If a service falling into the immediate task time-frame was intended to make all such services count as immediate tasks there would be no need to make that distinction. A service being complicated would be utterly irrelevant, as long as it couldn't be accomplished quickly.

Far, far more importantly; both of us are having to read implications created by the phrasing of raw and neither of us has used a remotely illogical argument yet we've come to nearly opposite conclusions. I'd say this is the very definition of ambiguous meaning in the RAW.

Krobar

2013-02-06, 09:33 PM

It's a lot more entertaining to gate in a pit fiend, and order it to demean itself by bowing, scraping and grovelling before you.

Or you could tell it to REALLY demean itself with that tree branch over there, if you catch my meaning.

That's well worth the experience point cost.

Rogue Shadows

2013-02-06, 11:35 PM

Also, the definition for an immediate task is not at all specific. "Fighting for you in a single battle or taking any other actions that can be accomplished within 1 round per caster level..." is far too broad to consider a specific definiton, especially given that combat -can- take longer than 1 round/CL under the right circumstances even though use of the word "other" in that phrase clearly indicates that combat is assumed to always fit within that time-frame.

Actually...no, it really doesn't, thanks to that "or" creating a separate clause in the sentence. It would have been better if WotC had used "...in a single battle, or...", with that comma added in for extra distinction...but as it stands, an immediate task is clearly defined as fighting in a single battle or taking any other actions that can be accomplished in 1 round/level. That is, even if the fighting takes longer than 1 round/CL, it's still an immediate task.

Also, I feel you're forgetting this part of the spell: "The creature departs at the end of the spell." Thus even if the immediate task is fighting in a single battle, it will depart at the end of the spell - that is to say, 1 round/CL - regardless.

Phelix-Mu

2013-02-06, 11:54 PM

Ravenica

2013-02-07, 12:16 AM

Gate is not [mind-affecting], please show me where gate says the control it applies is mental. The truth is Protection from Evil will do nothing to prevent the solar from commanded by a caster using Gate. You are of course free to houserule otherwise, but that is not what is the subject of the current discussion.

It doesn't have to say [mind-affect] Magic Circle gives blanket coverage against any form of compulsion, exact text

Second, the barrier blocks any attempt to possess the warded creature (by a magic jar attack, for example) or to exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment (charm) effects and enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject, such as dominate person)

No spell can therefore FORCE or COMPEL the Solar to preform any actions at all. It isn't specifying specific enchantment effects that work it's blanket covering anything. If a Gated Solar would normally refuse your request the spell can't make them do it because it can't be commanded.

Anzyr

2013-02-07, 12:37 AM

It doesn't have to say [mind-affect] Magic Circle gives blanket coverage against any form of compulsion, exact text

Second, the barrier blocks any attempt to possess the warded creature (by a magic jar attack, for example) or to exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment (charm) effects and enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject, such as dominate person)

No spell can therefore FORCE or COMPEL the Solar to preform any actions at all. It isn't specifying specific enchantment effects that work it's blanket covering anything. If a Gated Solar would normally refuse your request the spell can't make them do it because it can't be commanded.

I'm not sure how you managed to quote the spell and misread it, but I'll take a moment to break down the quoted rules text for you.

Second, the barrier blocks any attempt to possess the warded creature (by a magic jar attack, for example)

Well, Gate makes no mention of possession so Magic Circle won't help much on that count.

or to exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment (charm) effects and enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject, such as dominate person)

Magic Circle prevents mental control from being exercised over the creature, which will not help. Gate lacks the [Mind-Affecting] tag and makes no mention of mental control over the creature, so this section will not help a gated creature either. If you believe otherwise, please point out to me where Gate says anything about possession, mental control, compulsion or charm. (You won't find it, it simply lets you control the creature, no mental control need apply.)

As you can see, Magic Circle is completely ineffective against Gate. You are of course free to houserule otherwise, but please kindly restrict that your table.

Ravenica

2013-02-07, 12:47 AM

I'm not sure how you managed to quote the spell and misread it, but I'll take a moment to break down the quoted rules text for you.

Second, the barrier blocks any attempt to possess the warded creature (by a magic jar attack, for example)

Well, Gate makes no mention of possession so Magic Circle won't help much on that count.

or to exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment (charm) effects and enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject, such as dominate person)

Magic Circle prevents mental control from being exercised over the creature, which will not help. Gate lacks the [Mind-Affecting] tag and makes no mention of mental control over the creature, so this section will not help a gated creature either. If you believe otherwise, please point out to me where Gate says anything about possession, mental control, compulsion or charm. (You won't find it, it simply lets you control the creature, no mental control need apply.)

As you can see, Magic Circle is completely ineffective against Gate. You are of course free to houserule otherwise, but please kindly restrict that your table.
1:
If you choose to call a kind of creature instead of a known individual, you may call either a single creature or several creatures. In either case, their total HD cannot exceed twice your caster level. In the case of a single creature, you can control it if its HD does not exceed your caster level. A creature with more HD than your caster level can't be controlled. Deities and unique beings cannot be controlled in any event. An uncontrolled being acts as it pleases, making the calling of such creatures rather dangerous. An uncontrolled being may return to its home plane at any time.

Now I am no expert but I'm pretty sure you aren't controlling it with a leash :smalltongue:

The only Caveat I can give is this is the pathfinder version, any other version is none of my concern but the spell specifically talks of controlling a creature therefore magic circle protects it from that effect. Magic Circle does not call out specific spell schools to define mental control except to give examples. It doesn't SAY "Immune to [Mind-Affecting] so the spell doesn't have to SAY [Mind-Affecting] to be blocked

edit: Just for the record now that I'm seeing for sure that you guys are using the 3.5 version, there's no limit on how long controlled creatures stay or how many controlled creatures you can have, it's a wonderful loophole with the pathfinder version for anything you CAN control.

Anzyr

2013-02-07, 01:12 AM

Considering it lacks the Mind-Affecting tag or any indication that it is mental control I think that is a fairly poor argument. Gate simply allows you to control the creature, there is no mental control being exercised. The key word mental control simply is not there. Therefore, it works plain and simple. Please cite where mental control is being exercised.

(Non-RAW commentary) If you must have a flavor explanation for control that is not mental, then Gate simply physically controls the creature moving its limbs and activating its abilities like a puppet, its mind fully in control and fully incapable of doing anything.

Ravenica

2013-02-07, 01:18 AM

Flickerdart

2013-02-07, 01:19 AM

It doesn't have the necessary tags for that either so that's a pretty weak argument :smallamused:
There are no tags for that.

Ravenica

2013-02-07, 01:21 AM

There are no tags for that.

sure there are

Transmutation for starters just like every other telekinetic effect :smalltongue:

Kelb_Panthera

2013-02-07, 01:23 AM

I wondered about this. The duration of the calling effect is instantaneous. The part about the immediate task is within 1 round/level, but this isn't stated to be a duration for the "end of the spell", just a benchmark for defining "immediate." More ambiguity, it seems. Is there some kind of default duration for spells with the calling descriptor?
There is. In the magic overview section of the PHB it explicitly says that all calling effects are instantaneous.

Actually...no, it really doesn't, thanks to that "or" creating a separate clause in the sentence. It would have been better if WotC had used "...in a single battle, or...", with that comma added in for extra distinction...but as it stands, an immediate task is clearly defined as fighting in a single battle or taking any other actions that can be accomplished in 1 round/level. That is, even if the fighting takes longer than 1 round/CL, it's still an immediate task.

Also, I feel you're forgetting this part of the spell: "The creature departs at the end of the spell." Thus even if the immediate task is fighting in a single battle, it will depart at the end of the spell - that is to say, 1 round/CL - regardless.

First you want to ignore an "or" now you want to add a comma.

You're unambiguously making an interpretation at this point. An interpretation that must be made because the RAW is -NOT- crystal clear. Some people will agree with you. I'm not one of them.

My argument is just as solid as yours and is still an interpretation of unclear RAW. Some people will agree with me. You're not one of them.

This is my entire point about the spell being unsuitable to TO use. Yours is generally the more popular interpretation, since it grants "moar powah," but its not the only one and it's not unambiguously, inarguably, clearly correct.

At least the other calling spells all had the decency to have a clause about either the called creature always refusing unreasonable demands (planar binding) or a built in cost-service rate (planar ally).

Anzyr

2013-02-07, 01:24 AM

Ravenica

2013-02-07, 01:27 AM

First, I fail to see RAW how not having tags has any effect on the fact that Gate simply gives you control of the creature... not mental control just plain straight up control.

Second, if you are referencing my labeled non-RAW commentary, Calling is actually a very good tag for physically forcing a creature to do something from a flavor perspective (and it is a tag Gate actually has), considering that it allows you bodily move a creature from one plane to another against its will (or do you believe that is a "mental" effect as well?)

Calling: A calling spell transports a creature from another plane to the plane you are on. The spell grants the creature the one-time ability to return to its plane of origin, although the spell may limit the circumstances under which this is possible. Creatures who are called actually die when they are killed; they do not disappear and reform, as do those brought by a summoning spell (see below). The duration of a calling spell is instantaneous, which means that the called creature can't be dispelled.

Nothing there about forcibly moving anything, physically or otherwise, against it's will or otherwise

Kelb_Panthera

2013-02-07, 01:31 AM

A point on the "control" Vs "mental control" argument; I don't believe mental control -is- a key-phrase. If it were then surely it would've been used in one of the dominate spells. I'm pretty sure that's its just an adjective and a noun that are adjacent to each other in that sentence.

Consequently, I'm inclined to disinclude anything that lacks the mind-affecting tag from that blanket of protection.

Btw, how gnarly of a magic item would a blanket of protection be for a slay-mate (libris mortis) with class levels to have?

Flickerdart

2013-02-07, 01:32 AM

sure there are

Transmutation for starters just like every other telekinetic effect :smalltongue:
Transmutation is not a tag. It is a school of spells, none of which have the ability to call a creature.

Ravenica

2013-02-07, 01:42 AM

Transmutation is not a tag. It is a school of spells, none of which have the ability to call a creature.

And conjuration is a school of spells, which doesn't explicitly state what form of control it grants. However if you can provide me even a single example of any spell or ability that lets you activate an ability that has a simple "mental activation" without being mental control I can concede the point. As far as I'm aware that does not exist. It certainly doesn't exist in any Pathfinder material. Therefore the only reasonable interpretation of control As Written is of the Mental variety.

Conjuration
Creatures you conjure usually—but not always—obey your commands.
Gate
If you choose to call a kind of creature instead of a known individual, you may call either a single creature or several creatures. In either case, their total HD cannot exceed twice your caster level. In the case of a single creature, you can control it if its HD does not exceed your caster level. A creature with more HD than your caster level can't be controlled. Deities and unique beings cannot be controlled in any event. An uncontrolled being acts as it pleases, making the calling of such creatures rather dangerous. An uncontrolled being may return to its home plane at any time.
Specific phrase from Magic Circle that applies
effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject
well look at that, it doesn't even specify MENTAL control there now does it?
Gate grants the caster ongoing control, so it is blocked.

Flickerdart

2013-02-07, 01:49 AM

Ravenica

2013-02-07, 01:54 AM

Not sure what you're quoting, but:
a) Protection from Evil is quite clearly mental control only, as it and Circle both specify mental;
b) Creatures that are called or summoned are not under mental control; they are, however, required by the power of the spell to do as you order them. In the same way that a captain can tell a soldier to shoot a guy with a gun.
Then there is no control at all, the soldier can disobey as much as he likes, there are simply consequences.

I'm specifically quoting the text from pathfinder's Definition of Conjuration, Gate, and Magic Circle. As has been my case since my first post, RAW in pathfinder the Solar can't be commanded, and to even attempt you would have to have a CL of 22 anyway.

Flickerdart

2013-02-07, 01:55 AM

Ravenica

2013-02-07, 01:59 AM

{Scrubbed}

And the spell quite explicitly gives you control. You even bolded the parts for me. The control, however, is not mental, but magical.
1: Lots of us
2: But it IS ongoing control which is covered by PF Magic Circle
3: For all intents and purposes "Mental Control" does not exist in either as it is never specifically defined in either 3.5 or PF, therefore specific (Ongoing Control) trumps General "mental control"

Flickerdart

2013-02-07, 02:08 AM

1: Lots of us
Chain-gating Solars is a 3.5 practice. Also, actually reading the PF versions of the relevant spells, they still keep the "mental control" bit so I'm not sure what you're even reading.

2: But it IS ongoing control which is covered by PF Magic Circle

Irrelevant, see above.

3: For all intents and purposes "Mental Control" does not exist in either as it is never specifically defined in either 3.5 or PF, therefore specific (Ongoing Control) trumps General "mental control"
Mental control exists and the spell even gives examples of what it is.

Anzyr

2013-02-07, 02:09 AM

Then there is no control at all, the soldier can disobey as much as he likes, there are simply consequences.

I'm specifically quoting the text from pathfinder's Definition of Conjuration, Gate, and Magic Circle. As has been my case since my first post, RAW in pathfinder the Solar can't be commanded, and to even attempt you would have to have a CL of 22 anyway.

I think someone is not familiar with Protection from Evil in Pathfinder. Mostly because, that line "effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject" is only present in the 3.5 version (see below).

Second, the subject immediately receives another saving throw (if one was allowed to begin with) against any spells or effects that possess or exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment [charm] effects and enchantment [compulsion] effects, such as charm person, command, and dominate person). This saving throw is made with a +2 morale bonus, using the same DC as the original effect. If successful, such effects are suppressed for the duration of this spell. The effects resume when the duration of this spell expires. While under the effects of this spell, the target is immune to any new attempts to possess or exercise mental control over the target. This spell does not expel a controlling life force (such as a ghost or spellcaster using magic jar), but it does prevent them from controlling the target. This second effect only functions against spells and effects created by evil creatures or objects, subject to GM discretion.

Furthermore, the RAW is that a non-evil creature is A-OK to control the Solar even with mental effects or possession. Last but not least, if you can't hit a CL of 22, you simply are not trying.

Ravenica

2013-02-07, 02:11 AM

Chain-gating Solars is a 3.5 practice.

Irrelevant, see above.

Mental control exists and the spell even gives examples of what it is.
1: The thread creator specifically including PF in the discussion, if you don't like it that's fine but I'll thank you to stop trivialising the game system I prefer just because it isn't the one you play.
2:Yeah ignoring that
3:Which specifically point's out ONGOING CONTROL as an example, thank you for FINALLY understanding:smallamused:

Flickerdart

2013-02-07, 02:16 AM

1: The thread creator specifically including PF in the discussion, if you don't like it that's fine but I'll thank you to stop trivialising the game system I prefer just because it isn't the one you play.
PF retains the "mental" bit.

3:Which specifically point's out ONGOING CONTROL as an example, thank you for FINALLY understanding:smallamused:
The PF spell description of Protection from Evil does not contain the word "ongoing". The 3.5 one has a context you've decided to cut out in order to serve your argument: "including enchantment (charm) effects and enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject, such as dominate person". The "ongoing effects" mentioned are specifically of those two subschools.

Please attempt to adopt some sort of consistency in what system you are using and what words in a sentence you are reading.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-02-07, 02:21 AM

1: The thread creator specifically including PF in the discussion, if you don't like it that's fine but I'll thank you to stop trivialising the game system I prefer just because it isn't the one you play.
2:Yeah ignoring that
3:Which specifically point's out ONGOING CONTROL as an example, thank you for FINALLY understanding:smallamused:

I'm not sure about the pathfinder version (looks like a pointless, unecessary nerf at a glance) but in the 3.5 version the line isn't "effects that grant the caster ongoing control," it's "enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control." This is given in a parenthetical example for the kinds of effects that constitute mental control. Since -all- enchantment (compulsion) spells have the mind-affecting tag, this particular example does nothing to support your argument and, in fact, makes a much better counter-example to your interpretation.
Edit: Damn ninjas.

HMS Invincible

2013-02-07, 02:21 AM

I'm confused, are we talking about gate in 3.5 or pathfinder? More specifically, there are people that say we can't make a solar cast one of his spells for us? Or was the issue that a simple mind's blank prevents all planar binding from working? Cuz that would suck, not to mention piss off a wizard who has to spend one more spell dispelling minds blank before resuming whittling away their charisma check.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-02-07, 02:29 AM

The pathfinder version of gate is even more ambiguous than the 3.5 version. They omitted the clause describing immediate tasks and neglected to describe the limitations of the control you have over the called outsider if its HD is equal to, or less than, your CL. I'm not sure its even useable as-is.

DeadlyLuvdisc

2013-02-07, 02:57 AM

...
If you assume the DM plays the creature as indifferent it's very safe to assume the creature will take the command to lower its defenses as a hostile action and use its remaining actions to try and foil the assault it knows is coming.
...

I whole heartedly agree. I bet that, as a full caster typically does, the Solar probably has put some amount of thought into how they would react to situations where they will fail a save versus something dire. Things like readying an action to cast greater counterspell if the fool who gave the command tries to cast something harmful on it, or perhaps even disabling the caster before fulfilling the command. Imagine the Solar saying "hey, I lowered my Spell Resistance and am ready to fail my save. Can I go now?" as they watch you frozen under the effects of several debilitating spells. Seriously, what kind of full spell caster just says "sure, I'll do that obviously very foolish thing without doing anything to prepare for it"?

Rogue Shadows

2013-02-07, 03:04 AM

My argument is just as solid as yours

See, but that's the thing: it isn't, not with a proper examination of the sentence structure and nitpicky knowledge of the English language involved.

It really does unambiguously set up a binary statement ("immediate or contractual") and then, with perhaps not as much clarity as could be desired from the situation due the not incorrect but certainly muddying decision to not include a comma for extra clarity on WotC's part, but still more than clearly enough to establish what it is attempting to do via any actual examination of the language used, define what the spell's conditions consider to be an immediate action, which is a single battle or a single task which requires no more than 1/CL rounds to complete.

Technically it's not actually nitpicky as this should be obvious on the first read-through by anyone who's fluent in English, however imperfect/deliberately obtuse usage of English could lead one to believe/decide that something else is the case, so we have to get nitpicky to show how it's not.

If you want I can start breaking the paragraph down further into object-subject-verb, etc, but the point is that Gate is not in any way, shape, or form ambiguous as to what constitutes an immediate task.

And again, no, you don't have a solid argument otherwise, since your case hinges entirely on an incorrect interpretation of how the English language works. Which is forgivable in general because 99.99% of the time one doesn't need exacting knowledge of English, so of course one is likely to slip up on the .01% of occasions where one does.

The pathfinder version of gate is even more ambiguous than the 3.5 version. They omitted the clause describing immediate tasks and neglected to describe the limitations of the control you have over the called outsider if its HD is equal to, or less than, your CL. I'm not sure its even useable as-is.

That is an annoying omission. I would assume that, having failed to define the duration in the text, then we default back to the stat block, giving the length of service as either Instantaneous (so it can't ever be controlled, which doesn't seem logical as it means the spell outright does not function) or else Concentration (up to 1 round/level).

Actually the latter is almost certainly intended to be the case, and the "see text" clause is there solely for longer or more exacting tasks. Which PF did not define at all, whereas WotC at least clearly defined them as "anything that is not immediate."

Kelb_Panthera

2013-02-07, 03:18 AM

See, but that's the thing: it isn't, not with a proper examination of the sentence structure and nitpicky knowledge of the English language involved.

It really does unambiguously set up a binary statement ("immediate or contractual") and then, with perhaps not as much clarity as could be desired from the situation due the not incorrect but certainly muddying decision to not include a comma for extra clarity on WotC's part, but still more than clearly enough to establish what it is attempting to do via any actual examination of the language used, define what the spell's conditions consider to be an immediate action, which is a single battle or a single task which requires no more than 1/CL rounds to complete.

Technically it's not actually nitpicky as this should be obvious on the first read-through by anyone who's fluent in English, however imperfect/deliberately obtuse usage of English could lead one to believe/decide that something else is the case, so we have to get nitpicky to show how it's not.

If you want I can start breaking the paragraph down further into object-subject-verb, etc, but the point is that Gate is not in any way, shape, or form ambiguous as to what constitutes an immediate task.

And again, no, you don't have a solid argument otherwise, since your case hinges entirely on an incorrect interpretation of how the English language works. Which is forgivable in general because 99.99% of the time one doesn't need exacting knowledge of English, so of course one is likely to slip up on the .01% of occasions where one does.

That is an annoying omission. I would assume that, having failed to define the duration in the text, then we default back to the stat block, giving the length of service as either Instantaneous (so it can't ever be controlled, which doesn't seem logical) or else Concentration (up to 1 round/level).

Actually the latter is almost certainly the case, and the "see text" clause is there solely for longer or more exacting tasks. Which PF did not define at all, whereas WotC at least clearly defined them as "anything that is not immediate."

:smallconfused: Alright. Since you went there; go ahead and break the entire calling section down in a full analysis of proper grammar so we can all bust out our grammar textbooks and double check you.

English is my native language, btw.

Note that I'm not being facetious here. If you follow through on this request I -will- check it against an english grammar text-book to verify. I realize my english isn't absolutely, infallably perfect but I'm willing to bet yours isn't either.

I've never disputed the binary nature of the tasks. That would be absurd. I -do- disagree with the notion that the time-frame definition of what constitutes an immediate task is so all inclusive and was intended to preclude the notion that a short but involved task couldn't be a contractual service.

Rogue Shadows

2013-02-07, 03:35 AM

English is my native language, btw.

It's my native language too. Surely you'll acknowledge that there is a huge difference between being able to speak or read/write a language and being able to actually analyze and understand the finer points of one, however.

Where I am, it's 3:33 AM, so I'm not going to do this now as I need sleep. I'll get back to you when I wake up.

Damnit, I've been out of high school for six years now, I don't want to do sentence structure again...oh well, my own fault.

I -do- disagree with the notion that the time-frame definition of what constitutes an immediate task is so all inclusive and was intended to preclude the notion that a short but involved task couldn't be a contractual service.

Thankfully, though, at least I only have to focus on part of one sentence thanks to you making this point. I really don't understand it, though, it literally could not be clearer. Once more with feeling:

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.

Give me an example of a an involved service of 17 rounds' length that would not ping the bold section above - and make sure especially that it does not ping the "any" that's been underlined - and you might have some ground to stand on, but from where I'm standing, it looks like another binary statement to me.

...hmm...

...something did just occur to me that you might like, though. It does say "any other actions." It is possible, therefore, that it means actions in the D&D sense of the word, and so the clause is meant to cover commanding the gate'd creature casting a spell or using some other ability that takes longer than 1 full round action.

However, I see nothing to actually indicate that.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-02-07, 03:46 AM

It's my native language too. Surely you'll acknowledge that there is a huge difference between being able to speak or read/write a language and being able to actually analyze and understand the finer points of one, however.

Where I am, it's 3:33 AM, so I'm not going to do this now as I need sleep. I'll get back to you when I wake up.

Damnit, I've been out of high school for six years now, I don't want to do sentence structure again...oh well, my own fault.

Of course I see the difference between simply speaking/writing and actively analyzing spoken/written language. You're the one pushing the analysis by insisting that I've analyzed it wrong.

Take as long as you like, just please post it directly into the thread. Hardware limitations make it impossible for me to download any kind of PDF or TXT files. I can't even read google-docs.

NotScaryBats

2013-02-07, 04:08 AM

I think you guys are reading different versions of these spells, and this angel.

From the srd:
Solar: (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/angel.htm) "The following abilities are always active on a solar’s person, as the spells (caster level 20th)

detect evil, detect snares and pits, discern lies (DC 21), see invisibility, true seeing. They can be dispelled, but the solar can reactivate them as a free action."

I don't see it having any protection spell on itself always. If it did, Protection from Evil (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/protectionFromEvil.htm) grants: "Second, the barrier blocks any attempt to possess the warded creature (by a magic jar attack, for example) or to exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment (charm) effects and enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject, such as dominate person)"

So that's 'any attempt to possess or to exercise mental control'

Finally, Gate (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/gate.htm) "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.

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. The service exacted must be reasonable with respect to the promised favor or reward; see the lesser planar ally spell for appropriate rewards. (Some creatures may want their payment in “livestock” rather than in coin, which could involve complications.) Immediately upon completion of the service, the being is transported to your vicinity, and you must then and there turn over the promised reward. After this is done, the creature is instantly freed to return to its own plane."

So, we have "such services fall into two categories" pick that apart and it does not say "one of two categories" so something could fall into both.

Read further, and it says "If you choose to exact a longer or more involved form of service" further implying that something could be both immediate and contractual. What does 'more involved' mean? Who knows. Your DM probably knows.

So, if everyone agrees to discuss the same version of these things, it will cut out a lot of the "what spell are you reading? Mine clearly says x" that is going on here.

My opinion on the topic is that you can never wish for more wishes, even in a roundabout way. The universe will punish you and you will fail in your clumsy or elegant grab for infinite wishes. But, that's just me, and your DM may play it differently.

Rogue Shadows

2013-02-07, 04:19 AM

My opinion on the topic is that you can never wish for more wishes, even in a roundabout way. The universe will punish you and you will fail in your clumsy or elegant grab for infinite wishes. But, that's just me, and your DM may play it differently.

It's actually how I play, too - actually I cut wish and miracle from the game entirely, and significantly re-worked limited wish and introduced a limited miracle (actually it's called divine intervention, but it's basically limited miracle) - but personal play style doesn't enter into a RAW discussion.

NotScaryBats

2013-02-07, 04:20 AM

Yes, that was a "if anyone cares what NotScaryBats thinks" I threw in at the end. I doubt anyone does, however.

Killer Angel

2013-02-07, 05:43 AM

Finally, Gate (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/gate.htm) "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."

I think the spell is painfully clear. If I Gate a creature for a fight or to do something that can be done within 1 round per caster level (thus, a casting of a wish is included), that creature will do it.
What the creature will do after the departing, is up to the DM, it's not specified by RAW and usually it doesn't enter in TO discussions.

NotScaryBats

2013-02-07, 06:16 AM

My argument was that you could file a use of Wish as a "more involved form of service" because as written, it is exactly the same as saying "if your DM doesn't like the loophole you've found, s/he is within RAW to say you still have to offer some payment for your request"

Anything could be a "more involved form of service" since using a 1/day cooldown is a big deal (if you want it to be). It's not fiat, it is built into the spell.

Talderas

2013-02-07, 08:04 AM

There are no tags for that.

Compulsion. It includes both physical and mental control.

Compulsion: A compulsion spell forces the subject to act in some manner or changes the way her mind works. Some compulsion spells determine the subject's actions or the effects on the subject, some compulsion spells allow you to determine the subject's actions when you cast the spell, and others give you ongoing control over the subject.

Circle provides protection from compulsion. Now, Gate may not have a compulsion tag (mostly due to the fact that the spell is a conjuration rather than an enchantment) but it's also one of the funky spells that has defined effects that are outside of the base school. At the very least it's a Conjuration [Calling] or Conjuration [Teleportation] spell depending on which usage you use (Conj [Teleportation] for using it to travel through). If you look at Conjuration [Calling] spells none of them, except Gate, grant control over the creature called nor does the Calling descriptor provide any indication that such spells exact control. You need a secondary effect to generate that.

Gate is a poorly written spell that needs to be adjudicated by the DM before usage. That's all there is to it. The spell pays poor lipservice to even attempting to follow the rules regarding magic outside of casting it and preparing it and all that mundane parts.

Karnith

2013-02-07, 09:41 AM

I don't see it having any protection spell on itself always.
That would probably be because its Protective Aura ability is listed under Angel traits, not under the description of a Solar. The Protective Aura works as follows:

Protective Aura (Su): Against attacks made or effects created by evil creatures, this ability provides a +4 deflection bonus to AC and a +4 resistance bonus on saving throws to anyone within 20 feet of the angel. Otherwise, it functions as a magic circle against evil effect and a lesser globe of invulnerability, both with a radius of 20 feet (caster level equals angel’s HD). This aura can be dispelled, but the angel can create it again as a free action on its next turn. (The defensive benefits from the circle are not included in an angel’s statistics block.) (Emphasis mine)

Also, it's a shame that using Gate to summon creatures isn't a Conjuration (Summoning) spell, because then we wouldn't have all of the issues of chain-gating, infinite wishes, and the like.

Flickerdart

2013-02-07, 09:55 AM

nedz

2013-02-07, 10:14 AM

Angel Traits
Protective Aura (Su): Against attacks made or effects created by evil creatures, this ability provides a +4 deflection bonus to AC and a +4 resistance bonus on saving throws to anyone within 20 feet of the angel. Otherwise, it functions as a magic circle against evil effect and a lesser globe of invulnerability, both with a radius of 20 feet (caster level equals angel’s HD). This aura can be dispelled, but the angel can create it again as a free action on its next turn. (The defensive benefits from the circle are not included in an angel’s statistics block.)
Well at least they protected them against Planer Binding since the GoI will take out the Magic Circle used for the Calling Diagram.

Karnith

2013-02-07, 10:17 AM

If you look at Conjuration [Calling] spells none of them, except Gate, grant control over the creature called nor does the Calling descriptor provide any indication that such spells exact control. You need a secondary effect to generate that.
Well, no, the spell description clearly states that the creature follows your control, which is all you need for the spell to give you control over the creature. Second, neither the (Calling) nor the (Summmoning) sub-schools indicate that you gain control over the called/summoned creatures, so it is not a sub-school-dependent factor. As Flickerdart indicates, the description of Conjuration spells notes that "creatures you conjure usually, but not always, obey your commands," so it is within the power of Conjuration spells to force summoned or called creatures to obey your commands. No secondary effect is needed unless the spell does not say that the creature obeys your commands, as is the case with the Planar Binding spells.

Pickford

2013-02-07, 12:23 PM

And even if it did have those descriptors, I'm not 100% clear on magic circle v evil blocking commands that fall somewhere into the grey area between good or evil, as many such commands are bound to do.

Magic Circle against Evil works as Protection from Evil.

Protection from Evil gives protection from:

Second, the barrier blocks any attempt to possess the warded creature (by a magic jar attack, for example) or to exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment (charm) effects and enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject, such as dominate person).

Gate has the Conjuration (Creation or Calling) tag, not Enchantment (Charm) or Enchantment (Compulsion). Again, see Dominate Person for an example of this text.

Note: Despite Gate forcing the creature to respond (unless it is a Deity or Unique) this is 'not' a charm or compulsion effect as defined by the rules. Those are specifically enchantments.

Therefore Protection from Evil via the Solar provides no benefit.

Answerer

2013-02-07, 12:31 PM

On issues of nitpicky grammar, Rogue_Shadows is correct and Kelb is wrong: gate clearly defines any action that requires less than CL rounds as an immediate action, and no action that takes less than that can be anything but. The relevant line is "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," which really leaves no room for argument. An immediate task is defined as taking that much time, and no other consideration is involved.

The line about "more involved" is directly comparing itself against the standard of "1 round per caster level," so the only way to be "more involved" is to take longer. Redundant phrasing is redundant, but you'll never succeed in arguing that Wizards employed the best writers to ever use the English language.

And of course (surprise, surprise) Pickford is also reading protection from evil wrong since it says "including Enchantment (Charm) and ...", which rather explicitly indicates that this is not an exhaustive list.

The argument that gate's control over a creature does not constitute "mental control" is much stronger, particularly since the fluff on Outsiders indicates that it's closer to a matter of spiritual control since they are creatures of belief bound by certain arcane rules such as obeying a proper Calling under the appropriate circumstances. There's plenty of literature to that effect in various fantasy and mythological source material, as well.

Pickford

2013-02-07, 12:35 PM

Well at least they protected them against Planer Binding since the GoI will take out the Magic Circle used for the Calling Diagram.

And they are 23 HD at least....so yeah. Go go limitations on Planar Binding HD?

And of course (surprise, surprise) Pickford is also reading protection from evil wrong since it says "including Enchantment (Charm) and ...", which rather explicitly indicates that this is not an exhaustive list.

Gate doesn't do mental control so it's not an incorrect reading.

Rogue Shadows

2013-02-07, 12:52 PM

Wait, I just realized that figuring out where the subject and predicate are isn't going to help here. Which is good, I really didn't want to refresh my knowledge of fine English. Of course, I was, but fortunately about halfway through parsing the sentence I realized that it was almost completely irrelevant.

Thank God.

(Yes, I'm conceding that the precise sentence structure of English isn't going to be of any help here in making things clear. Again, it was 3 AM where I was and I was coming off of a 12-hour shift at work, so you'll forgive my lapse of judgment)

No, we just have to look at the terms and conditions of Gate and try and figure out a fundamental thing: what happens if a service is both less than 1 round/CL, and involved.

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.

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 here is what Gate is telling us.

1. A Task can be immediate or contractual.

2. An immediate task requires no compensation; a contractual service requires compensation.
2a. These conditions are mutually exclusive. While not outright stated as such, this is simply common sense at work: The task cannot both require no compensation and require compensation. Even if a given task potentially pings both, it will be forced by the nature of the spell to "settle" onto one side or another.

2. Fighting in a single battle is immediate task. No duration is given as the second part of the description of immediate tasks is a separate clause. If the single battle ends up lasting a year and a day, it is still an immediate task. Alternatively, it is likely that the spell always has a limit of 1 round/CL, except if you negotiate a contractual service. This actually seems to be the most likely case: the spell's Duration applies no matter how you're using the spell unless you can convince the Solar to stick around afterwards.

3. Engaging in a single task of up to 1 round/CL is outlined as being an immediate task. The nature of this task is not defined beyond its duration, and that such a task does not require a contractual service. We know it does not require a contractual service because it says so: "taking any other actions that can be accomplished within 1 round per caster level counts as an immediate task." Any is key here. It means that what is being asked of the Gate'd creature is irrelevant: any means any. Gate in a solar and command it to dance for 17 rounds? That is an immediate task. Gate in a solar and command it to spend 17 rounds describing the weaknesses of Celestia's defenses? That is an immediate task.

4. Contractual service is described as "longer or more involved." The "longer" part isn't really up for debate, since clear end points are described for an immediate task, so we're stuck on the "more involved." Again, though, we here reach an impasse. A service cannot be both contractual and immediate; they are mutually exclusive because one is free and one isn't, and you can't simultaneously pay a Gate'd creature and not pay a Gate'd creature. So we have to check back to see what immediate tasks are considered "not involved." Here, we find that an immediate task is "a single battle or any other actions that can can be accomplished within 1 round per caster level." So basically, you have to somehow think up a more involved task that does not ping the any clause of immediate tasks.

What I'm learning from this is that the "involved" clause of contractual service seems to be extraneous and useless. In order for a task to be "more involved," it needs something not as involved to be compared to, but the "immediate tasks" makes any task of 1 round/CL or less applicable. The only conclusion is that WotC didn't think things through again. Not surprising, but also not relevant to how Gate functions as per RAW.

But, basically, your argument hinges on your ability to do the following:

Give me an example of an "involved" service of equal or lesser time than 1 round/CL that does not ping the "any" clause of an immediate task.

nedz

2013-02-07, 12:57 PM

And they are 23 HD at least....so yeah. Go go limitations on Planar Binding HD?

Astral Devas have 12 HD and Planetars have 14 HD.
These both have the Angel type — which was the referenced text.

NotScaryBats

2013-02-07, 01:24 PM

If I read your responses correctly, Rogue Shadows and Answerer, I think we're agreeing that there is a moderately good RAW argument for both sides of the equation.

That's pretty much my only contention; the issue is not clear-cut and is completely up to the DM to adjudicate.

Answerer

2013-02-07, 01:26 PM

Gate doesn't do mental control so it's not an incorrect reading.
I didn't say you were wrong in your conclusion that protection from evil does nothing against gate; I'm inclined to agree, though not prepared to state unequivocally that this is the case. I said you were wrong in your reasoning, which you were, since you claimed that gate was unaffected because it was not an Enchantment (Charm) or Enchantment (Compulsion). The mental control blocked by protection from evil does not necessarily have to be one of those things.

Rogue Shadows

2013-02-07, 01:37 PM

If I read your responses correctly, Rogue Shadows and Answerer, I think we're agreeing that there is a moderately good RAW argument for both sides of the equation.

Not...not really. The Other Side of the argument completely hinges on their ability to provide an example of a task that is "involved" but does not ping the "any other action" clause of immediate tasks.

I sure as heck can't think of one.

Phelix-Mu

2013-02-07, 01:41 PM

The conversation got really complicated after I went to bed.:smallamused:

"More involved" is supremely ill-defined. I am inclined to agree with Kelb and NotScaryBats that it introduces precisely the wiggle room that will allow the DM to interpret the RAW however s/he likes.

The other argument about the clauses being explicit and exclusive is also pretty robust, though. I sense a contest of wills between player and DM over this kind of thing.

Moreover, back to the OP, why are solars so good for gate? I'm inclined to think that only their extremely powerful abilities are weighed in this calculation. Since the duration of the spell specifically does not send the creature away as far as I can tell for either immediate or contractual, I would be very cautious about assuming that there is some kind of clean getaway. The immediate task version references the "end of the spell," and as Kelb pointed out, calling effects are all instantaneous. Ergo, the solar gets to stick around and decide whether you are worth killing. Perhaps you can command the solar to leave? We are rapidly approaching the level of legal-esque writing for the commands that is normally reserved for high-risk wishing.

Not that the solar couldn't track the caster down even if it were sent back to its home plane at the end of the spell.

Flickerdart

2013-02-07, 01:53 PM

Not that the solar couldn't track the caster down even if it were sent back to its home plane at the end of the spell.
In the event that the combat you wanted the Solar for takes fewer than 20 rounds, you can order it to fail the next save and then hit it with a Programmed Amnesia. Modify Memory can be used if you used the Solar for less than half of Gate's duration. Either way, wipe the Solar's memory of its brief service to you. If you wanted to be very thorough, order the Solar to take both you and it back to Celestia before doing this, so that it doesn't notice anything was amiss after you erase its memory (of course, you should make sure it was alone, since its buddy Solars would get suspicious - if it was with people at the time, make it think you used Planar Ally or something).

Pickford

2013-02-07, 02:09 PM

I didn't say you were wrong in your conclusion that protection from evil does nothing against gate; I'm inclined to agree, though not prepared to state unequivocally that this is the case. I said you were wrong in your reasoning, which you were, since you claimed that gate was unaffected because it was not an Enchantment (Charm) or Enchantment (Compulsion). The mental control blocked by protection from evil does not necessarily have to be one of those things.

Ah touche, but the effect does have to be one of mental control. Calling is not.

Phelix-Mu

2013-02-07, 02:15 PM

In the event that the combat you wanted the Solar for takes fewer than 20 rounds, you can order it to fail the next save and then hit it with a Programmed Amnesia. Modify Memory can be used if you used the Solar for less than half of Gate's duration. Either way, wipe the Solar's memory of its brief service to you. If you wanted to be very thorough, order the Solar to take both you and it back to Celestia before doing this, so that it doesn't notice anything was amiss after you erase its memory (of course, you should make sure it was alone, since its buddy Solars would get suspicious - if it was with people at the time, make it think you used Planar Ally or something).

Magic circle won't protect it from that either? I see modify memory should be under that category of "mental control." Not so sure about programmed amnesia. It seems to me that, based on the angel ability that grants the magic circle, it doesn't appear that it can be willingly lowered (although it could be dispelled). I guess once the solar gets gated, it's pretty much screwed....

Which brings me to my original point: how is it that the generals of celestial armies are subject to this kind of gross mistreatment when it is 100% within their abilities to foil it before it even gets started? Even if one could be gated by good creatures looking for help, the solar's abdication of it's own judgement by coming under the control of another plausibly constitutes gross negligence on the part of the solar. It's like the guy with nuclear launch codes deciding to let his new "friends" take him to that sketchy bar downtown and serve him mixed drinks in plastic cups. Irresponsible.

Good casters should use planar ally or somesuch, something that doesn't rob Mr. Angel of his free will. Friends don't let friends take away friend's free will. As far as evil casters are concerned, Mr. Angel should be packing contingencies and a slaying arrow of [YOUR NAME HERE] just for the occasion. Solidly IMHO.

Flickerdart

2013-02-07, 02:37 PM

Magic circle won't protect it from that either? I see modify memory should be under that category of "mental control." Not so sure about programmed amnesia. It seems to me that, based on the angel ability that grants the magic circle, it doesn't appear that it can be willingly lowered (although it could be dispelled). I guess once the solar gets gated, it's pretty much screwed....
It's not control. It's memory modification. Magic Circle doesn't make you immune to [Mind-affecting].

Phelix-Mu

2013-02-07, 02:43 PM

It's not control. It's memory modification. Magic Circle doesn't make you immune to [Mind-affecting].

Both spells that you cited have the (compulsion) descriptor.

From Protection v Evil (3.5):

The protection does not prevent such effects from targeting the protected creature, but it suppresses the effect for the duration of the protection from evil effect.

Still not clear on this. Please clarify how the spells you cited don't qualify to be at least suppressed.

Talderas

2013-02-07, 02:51 PM

Flickerdart

2013-02-07, 02:55 PM

Both spells that you cited have the (compulsion) descriptor.

From Protection v Evil (3.5):

Still not clear on this. Please clarify how the spells you cited don't qualify to be at least suppressed.
Just because they're Compulsions doesn't make them control. The Pathfinder version actually has a ruling on this on the spell's page.

How would any of those be options? You've already utilized your service by asking them to fight for you.

While the creature may be under your control the spell very clearly states "A controlled creature can be commanded to perform a service for you." One service. If you command it to fight for you and combat takes 3 rounds, then it sits around for 14 more rounds until the spell's 17 rounds finish and it parts.
Ok, so hit it with PA once it comes in and make it think you summoned it with a Planar Ally spell and it already got the payment and then wired it to orphans.

Phelix-Mu

2013-02-07, 03:08 PM

So protection v evil really is as useless as I'd originally assumed, as the field of spells that it works on seems to constitute charm, dominate, and geas and their directly-related ilk.

I'm all for the distinction "not all control is mental control," fine, but then "not all [compulsion] are control?" That seems like a terrible descriptor, like [fire] that doesn't burn or the like. I guess "ongoing" might be hard to account for, but it seems that manipulating a person's memories with a duration of permanent is "ongoing."

Back to the point, since their natural defenses suck, solars really should wear protection, so to speak.

Sith_Happens

2013-02-07, 05:49 PM

Answerer

2013-02-07, 05:58 PM

I am prepared to say that protection from evil does nothing against memory modification and programmed amnesia. The spell very explicitly defends against "Enchantment (Charm) and Enchantment (Compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject," which neither spell does.

NotScaryBats

2013-02-07, 06:42 PM

No, it doesn't.

Protection from Evil grants: "Second, the barrier blocks any attempt to possess the warded creature (by a magic jar attack, for example) or to exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment (charm) effects and enchantment (compulsion) effects that grant the caster ongoing control over the subject, such as dominate person)"

OH HEY THAR:
"Programmed Amnesia

Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mindaffecting]
Level: Sorcerer/wizard 9 Components: V, S, M Casting Time: 10 minutes Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) Target: One living creature Duration: Permanent Saving Throw:Will negates Spell Resistance: Yes"

HUH. That looks like a Compulsion and Mindaffecting spell ANYWAY.
(from http://spirit-plumber.com/ROTUL/SRD/basic/spellsCA.html)

Kelb_Panthera

2013-02-07, 08:12 PM

Wait, I just realized that figuring out where the subject and predicate are isn't going to help here. Which is good, I really didn't want to refresh my knowledge of fine English. Of course, I was, but fortunately about halfway through parsing the sentence I realized that it was almost completely irrelevant.

Thank God.

(Yes, I'm conceding that the precise sentence structure of English isn't going to be of any help here in making things clear. Again, it was 3 AM where I was and I was coming off of a 12-hour shift at work, so you'll forgive my lapse of judgment)

No, we just have to look at the terms and conditions of Gate and try and figure out a fundamental thing: what happens if a service is both less than 1 round/CL, and involved.

So here is what Gate is telling us.

1. A Task can be immediate or contractual.

2. An immediate task requires no compensation; a contractual service requires compensation.
2a. These conditions are mutually exclusive. While not outright stated as such, this is simply common sense at work: The task cannot both require no compensation and require compensation. Even if a given task potentially pings both, it will be forced by the nature of the spell to "settle" onto one side or another.

2. Fighting in a single battle is immediate task. No duration is given as the second part of the description of immediate tasks is a separate clause. If the single battle ends up lasting a year and a day, it is still an immediate task. Alternatively, it is likely that the spell always has a limit of 1 round/CL, except if you negotiate a contractual service. This actually seems to be the most likely case: the spell's Duration applies no matter how you're using the spell unless you can convince the Solar to stick around afterwards.

3. Engaging in a single task of up to 1 round/CL is outlined as being an immediate task. The nature of this task is not defined beyond its duration, and that such a task does not require a contractual service. We know it does not require a contractual service because it says so: "taking any other actions that can be accomplished within 1 round per caster level counts as an immediate task." Any is key here. It means that what is being asked of the Gate'd creature is irrelevant: any means any. Gate in a solar and command it to dance for 17 rounds? That is an immediate task. Gate in a solar and command it to spend 17 rounds describing the weaknesses of Celestia's defenses? That is an immediate task.

4. Contractual service is described as "longer or more involved." The "longer" part isn't really up for debate, since clear end points are described for an immediate task, so we're stuck on the "more involved." Again, though, we here reach an impasse. A service cannot be both contractual and immediate; they are mutually exclusive because one is free and one isn't, and you can't simultaneously pay a Gate'd creature and not pay a Gate'd creature. So we have to check back to see what immediate tasks are considered "not involved." Here, we find that an immediate task is "a single battle or any other actions that can can be accomplished within 1 round per caster level." So basically, you have to somehow think up a more involved task that does not ping the any clause of immediate tasks.

What I'm learning from this is that the "involved" clause of contractual service seems to be extraneous and useless. In order for a task to be "more involved," it needs something not as involved to be compared to, but the "immediate tasks" makes any task of 1 round/CL or less applicable. The only conclusion is that WotC didn't think things through again. Not surprising, but also not relevant to how Gate functions as per RAW.

But, basically, your argument hinges on your ability to do the following:

Give me an example of an "involved" service of equal or lesser time than 1 round/CL that does not ping the "any" clause of an immediate task.

Your argument fails on point 2 because you've parsed the phrasing for immediate tasks incorrectly. That absent comma you mentioned earlier isn't necessary for extra clarity. It's necessary to create a seperation between "Fighting in a single battle" and "any other task." That lack of seperation makes "other" inclusive of "fighting in a single battle" rather than exclusive to it.

Therefore, I must only come up with an example of something more involved than fighting in a single battle that takes less than 1 round/CL. Given how straight-foward a short battle can be, that's not terribly difficult.

Answerer

2013-02-07, 08:17 PM

HUH. That looks like a Compulsion and Mindaffecting spell
It certainly is, but it does not grant control, ongoing or otherwise, mental or otherwise, and is therefore not affected by protection from evil in the least.

Therefore, I must only come up with an example of something more involved than fighting in a single battle that takes less than 1 round/CL. Given how straight-foward a short battle can be, that's not terribly difficult.
No, it doesn't matter how "involved" it is, because the spell defines immediate tasks by their duration. If it's less than the duration listed, it is immediate, full-stop.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-02-07, 08:28 PM

It certainly is, but it does not grant control, ongoing or otherwise, mental or otherwise, and is therefore not affected by protection from evil in the least.

No, it doesn't matter how "involved" it is, because the spell defines immediate tasks by their duration. If it's less than the duration listed, it is immediate, full-stop.

Then battle isn't always an immediate task. Is that right? A single battle -can- take more than the listed duration.

Actually, due to the fact that calling effects are instantaneous immediate tasks are impossible anyway, if you want to take RAW to its literal extreme. The last sentence of the immediate task section says "The creature departs at the end of the spell." The spell ended the instant it was completed since calling spells are always instantaneous. Therefore the creature appeared for just a moment, then disappeared immediately since you gave it an immediate task and the spell had already ended.

The above is an obvious oversight and so clearly not what was intended that noone would rule it that way but there ya go.

NotScaryBats

2013-02-07, 08:32 PM

Okay, so rewriting someone's memories to say "I control you" isn't mental control. Let's never play together.

charcoalninja

2013-02-07, 09:21 PM

Okay, so rewriting someone's memories to say "I control you" isn't mental control. Let's never play together.

No it actually isn't. You aren't directly imposing your will and wants upon the creature and having them carry out orders. Instead you've ravaged their mind and fooled them into choosing of their own free will to obey you, which is not control. To the controlled creature they are willingly obeyed which does not constitute mental control IMO.

On the subject of Gate and mental control, the are two types of control. Either the called creature in question is being physically manipulated by the spell, or they are forced mentally to adhere to the commands of their summoner. Physical control, or mental control, that's all you have. The spell is horribly written for sure, but we still only have what is available to us.

Gate COMPELS a creature to come through the portal, something dieties and unique beings are not compelled but my choose to go through the gate. Compulsion by definition is mental and such IMO would be thwarted by the angel's protective aura.

In PF, a non evil caster could indeed gate in and compel a solar to their bidding via this spell, but I strongly feel that in 3.5 the protective aura is more than sufficient to stop any sort of caster control. If gate isn't mental control what control is it?

Answerer

2013-02-07, 09:23 PM

Then battle isn't always an immediate task. Is that right? A single battle -can- take more than the listed duration.
OK, there is a statement here. Two options:
Fighting for you in a single battle
taking any other actions that can be accomplished within 1 round per caster level

These two options are connected by an or, which means if either one of them is true, then "...[either of the above] counts as an immediate task."

Fighting in a single battle? Immediate task.

Any other actions, outside of battle, that can be accomplished within 1 round per caster level? Immediate task.

Fighting in more than one battle, or any other actions that cannot be accomplished within 1 round per caster level? Contractual service.

That's all there is to it. That is what the words in the book says. None of this is even slightly ambiguous.

On the subject of Gate and mental control, the are two types of control.
False dichotomy, there are more conceivable ways in which something can be controlled. Particularly fantastical creatures of pure belief who are spirit and body in one.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-02-07, 09:51 PM

OK, there is a statement here. Two options:
Fighting for you in a single battle
taking any other actions that can be accomplished within 1 round per caster level

These two options are connected by an or, which means if either one of them is true, then "...[either of the above] counts as an immediate task."

Fighting in a single battle? Immediate task.

Any other actions, outside of battle, that can be accomplished within 1 round per caster level? Immediate task.

Fighting in more than one battle, or any other actions that cannot be accomplished within 1 round per caster level? Contractual service.

That's all there is to it. That is what the words in the book says. None of this is even slightly ambiguous.

That's not how you parse the sentence. If the "or" was an "and" you'd be correct. If there was a comma before the "or" you'd be correct. Neither of those is true. "any other task" is compared to fighting in a single battle, since fighting is actually a number of linked tasks; move, attack, defend, evade, etc, and both are compared against the time-frame. Without that comparison the phrase could be taken to mean any single act, which would be great for "grant my wish" but worthless for "defend me," as the latter entails a series of linked taks just like fighting in general.

They could've been a lot more ambiguous than they were, but they weren't crystal clear when they wrote this spell.

Answerer

2013-02-07, 10:00 PM

Kelb_Panthera

2013-02-07, 10:14 PM

OK, I'll grant you that the "that can be accomplished within 1 round per caster level" could, if you were so inclined, be read to also apply to a battle (rare to have a single battle that long anyway). However, that reads very oddly to me, since you should then be able to cut out the second half of the optional clause to get a sentence, as in "Fighting for you in a single battle that can be accomplished within 1 round per caster level," which just sounds wrong to me since you would not typically use the verb "accomplished" to refer to fighting a battle.

And if you were really going to have it read that way, it should have had two commas, like so: "Fighting for you in a single battle, or taking any other actions, that can be accomplished within 1 round per caster level." I refuse to put much rules weight on comma placement, though, since I do not give WotC even remotely that much credit. I agree also that a single comma, before the or, would have left it unambiguous that the duration clause does not apply to the single battle.

Regardless, however, it is very clear that anything that 1. does not involve more than one battle, and 2. occurs in less than CL rounds is an immediate task, regardless of its nature. Whether or not a single battle that takes more than CL rounds is an immediate task is open for debate, but it's not really relevant.

You're probably right about the second comma but you've misplaced it to get the effect you're presenting. It would be after the rounds per caster level phrase, not before it.

In any case, there's still no clear distinction between "fighting in a single battle" and "any other task."

For crystal clear meaning, they should've phrased it "Fighting in a single battle and any task that can be accomplished within 1 round per caster level count as immediate tasks." There would've been absolutely no room for debate or interpretation. Instead they used the phrasing they did and we have two possible interpretations who can only be proven or disproven by a very strict observation of english grammar; an observation that makes it abundantly clear that the sentence isn't correctly structured to clearly convey either interpretation as unambiguously correct.

Answerer

2013-02-07, 10:26 PM

Kelb_Panthera

2013-02-07, 10:45 PM

I disagree that your construction is superior. To me, "and" is a keyword that indicates that both conditions must be true. You'd need to add "each" in there to separate them again. On the other hand, "or" indicates, well, either-or. English or is (generally) inclusive, so no worries about things that are both fighting a single battle and taking less than CL rounds (which would be a silly interpretation in context anyway). Actually the singular nature of "fighting in a single battle" and "any task that can be accomplished within one round per caster level" compares with the plural of "immediate tasks" to clarify that they are two seperate instances of immediate tasks in my phrasing. I did have the ambiguous "an immediate task" at the end for a few seconds, before realizing it was ambiguous and editting it to the plural, so if you started your post before I caught that, sorry for the confusion.

Anyway, do you disagree that, regardless of how the option before the or interacts with the later limitation on duration, that "taking any other actions that can be accomplished within 1 round per caster level counts as an immediate task"? Because that's all I really care about as far as this discussion is concerned. I don't see how you can argue that any request that can be completed in under CL rounds (other than, perhaps, fighting in multiple battles) can be anything but immediate, by the rules written here.

The comparison of battle to any task gives us a baseline level of complexity to compare "more involved" to, should you require something to compare it to.

As I previously mentioned, however, that's not strictly necessary since any task that has far-reaching consequences can be said to be an involved task and the baseline between involved and more involved can be taken to be implicit rather than explicit, making it a DM drawn line.

Answerer

2013-02-08, 12:36 AM

Kelb_Panthera

2013-02-08, 01:09 AM

No, I do not agree. It says, extremely clearly, that any other task that can be accomplished in under CL rounds is an immediate task, full-stop, no room for argument. Any attempt to run things otherwise is a (well-advised) houserule changing the explicit rules.

You can disagree all you want. That we are even having this discussion proves my point about the wording being ambiguous. If it weren't there would be no room or need for interpretation. Clearly there is both room and a need for interpretation, whether you agree with my interpretation or not.

But just for fun I'll reiterate my points again.

The grammatic structure of the immediate tasks clause creates a connection between "fighting in a single combat" and "any other task," both are then measured against the rounds per level time-frame.
"fighting in a single battle" cannot exceed the time-limit and still be an immediate task. It also has a measureable, if not well defined, degree of complexity to compare a task to when determining if it may be "more involved"
A contractual service is determined by either taking more time "longer" or having greater complexity "more involved" than an immediate task.
specifically because the contractual service clause specifies "or" rather than "and" when comparing the length and complexity of a task and there is an example of an immediate task with a measureable complexity; a contractual service can take as little or less time than an immediate task.

Killer Angel

2013-02-08, 05:04 AM

Then battle isn't always an immediate task. Is that right? A single battle -can- take more than the listed duration.

No, it's not right.
Fighting a battle is listed as immediate task, so it is an immediate task, without the need to agree on a reward.
If the battle lasts longer, then the gated creature disappears after 1 round / level, cause, while doing an immediate task, the creature accomplish the task only for 1 round per caster level, and departs at the end of the spell.

"fighting in a single battle" cannot exceed the time-limit and still be an immediate task.

that's right. if you exceed the spell duration given for the immediate task, the spell ends and the creature departs.

A contractual service is determined by either taking more time "longer" or having greater complexity "more involved" than an immediate task.

THe fact is that we have this:
"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".
AND
"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".

If an action can be accomplished within one round per caster level, by RAW, it is an immediate task. Casting a 1-round spell as Wish, by RAW, falls in this cathegory.

If you choose to say that the casting of a 1 round spell, is a more involved form of service, than that's an interpretation. A perfectly legit one, but an interpretation nonetheless; You can call it RAI, but it's not RAW.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-02-08, 05:32 AM

No, it's not right.
Fighting a battle is listed as immediate task, so it is an immediate task, without the need to agree on a reward.
If the battle lasts longer, then the gated creature disappears after 1 round / level, cause, while doing an immediate task, the creature accomplish the task only for 1 round per caster level, and departs at the end of the spell.

that's right. if you exceed the spell duration given for the immediate task, the spell ends and the creature departs. In the case of calling a creature, the spell duration is instantaneous, per the magic overview section's listing for conjuration (calling) effects.

Also as I've been saying, fighting in a single battle is an example of any task that can be completed in one round per caster level due to the phrasing of the sentence. If the word "other" had been omitted or the phrasing I possited a few posts back been used, then this would be correct.

THe fact is that we have this:
"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".
AND
"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". Yes, I'm aware. :smallsigh: It's what we've been disecting for more than a page now.

If an action can be accomplished within one round per caster level, by RAW, it is an immediate task. Casting a 1-round spell as Wish, by RAW, falls in this cathegory.The fact of the matter is that this is not unambiguously clear because of the phrasing of the quoted passage for reasons I've layed out several times now.

If you choose to say that the casting of a 1 round spell, is a more involved form of service, than that's an interpretation. A perfectly legit one, but an interpretation nonetheless; You can call it RAI, but it's not RAW.

I -can- and do call it RAW. The phrasing of the passages in question create an ambiguity that requires interpretation. That mine is not the popular interpretation doesn't make it wrong or not RAW.

Killer Angel

2013-02-08, 05:55 AM

Yes, I'm aware. :smallsigh: It's what we've been disecting for more than a page now.

I know, and I really appreciate your efforts. :smallwink:

I -can- and do call it RAW. The phrasing of the passages in question create an ambiguity that requires interpretation. That mine is not the popular interpretation doesn't make it wrong or not RAW.

IMO, if theres the need for an interpretation, is no more clearly RAW.
The duration of the service to be qualified as immediate task, is not open to interpretation, while the "more involved task" is, so in a TO debate, it would be safer (and RAWish?) to limit ourselves to the certain things.

In the end, were I the DM in a real campaign, I would certainly agree with you!

Kelb_Panthera

2013-02-08, 07:13 AM

I know, and I really appreciate your efforts. :smallwink:

IMO, if theres the need for an interpretation, is no more clearly RAW.
The duration of the service to be qualified as immediate task, is not open to interpretation, while the "more involved task" is, so in a TO debate, it would be safer (and RAWish?) to limit ourselves to the certain things.

In the end, were I the DM in a real campaign, I would certainly agree with you!

The problem is that the ambiguity I've been talking about means that "any task" doesn't literally mean -any- task. Taking it that way means completely disregarding the fact that combat is supposed to fit into that time-frame and that the possibility of something being more involved exists altogether. Taking that interpretation means disregarding part of the RAW in favor of a different part of the RAW. It's still an interpretation, just a different one than the one I'm putting foward.

The fact of the matter is that -both- interpretations are RAW. By choosing either you're either giving or withholding favor from the player that uses the spell. Showing or refusing to show favor to a player isn't an acceptable thing to do in a TO excersize, therefore the spell shouldn't be used for TO at all.

Mnemnosyne

2013-02-08, 07:36 AM

You can disagree all you want. That we are even having this discussion proves my point about the wording being ambiguous. If it weren't there would be no room or need for interpretation. Clearly there is both room and a need for interpretation, whether you agree with my interpretation or not.

But just for fun I'll reiterate my points again.

The grammatic structure of the immediate tasks clause creates a connection between "fighting in a single combat" and "any other task," both are then measured against the rounds per level time-frame.
"fighting in a single battle" cannot exceed the time-limit and still be an immediate task. It also has a measureable, if not well defined, degree of complexity to compare a task to when determining if it may be "more involved"
A contractual service is determined by either taking more time "longer" or having greater complexity "more involved" than an immediate task.
specifically because the contractual service clause specifies "or" rather than "and" when comparing the length and complexity of a task and there is an example of an immediate task with a measureable complexity; a contractual service can take as little or less time than an immediate task.
Since 'fighting in a single battle' is a good comparison as to the determination of whether a task is 'more involved' or not, that poses this question:

Is casting his wish spell-like ability something that a Solar might choose to do while fighting in a battle?

If yes, then clearly, casting wish is less involved than fighting in a battle, because it can be a lesser part of the 'fight in a battle' activity, therefore clearly indicating that the casting of the SLA is less involved than the battle itself.

Answerer

2013-02-08, 09:20 AM

That we are even having this discussion proves my point about the wording being ambiguous.
This is fallacious.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-02-08, 09:35 AM

Since 'fighting in a single battle' is a good comparison as to the determination of whether a task is 'more involved' or not, that poses this question:

Is casting his wish spell-like ability something that a Solar might choose to do while fighting in a battle?

If yes, then clearly, casting wish is less involved than fighting in a battle, because it can be a lesser part of the 'fight in a battle' activity, therefore clearly indicating that the casting of the SLA is less involved than the battle itself.
I'd say almost certainly not. In all but the strangest of cases it's extreme overkill. In those rare events that that sort of overkill is necessary they can have miracle prepared, which has no limits, and their deity has no reason not to grant any miracle they ask for. Moreover outlining a wish for the creature to grant is far more complex than simply pointing at an enemy and saying "kill that."

This is fallacious.

Prove it. For it to be fallacious you must unambiguously prove that my interpretation is categorically incorrect. Which you cannot do because the wording for the spell -is- ambiguous and -does- require interpretation, which led to this lengthy discussion. Therefore this discussion, being the result of the ambiguity, can be considered proof that the ambiguity exists unless you can disprove its existence.

Answerer

2013-02-08, 09:37 AM

{Scrubbed}

Kelb_Panthera

2013-02-08, 09:41 AM

{Scrubbed}

[quote]{Scrubbed}

Didn't you just refuse to answer my challenge because you thought I was trolling? If I were, this looks a lot like taking the troll bait.

Killer Angel

2013-02-08, 10:32 AM

I'd say almost certainly not. In all but the strangest of cases it's extreme overkill. In those rare events that that sort of overkill is necessary they can have miracle prepared, which has no limits, and their deity has no reason not to grant any miracle they ask for. Moreover outlining a wish for the creature to grant is far more complex than simply pointing at an enemy and saying "kill that."

Well, I'll try to elaborate further my position.
You call a Solar to fight a battle. Unless it doesn't involve fighting a whole army (thus requiring a contract, 'cause it's not a simple skirmish), it's usually an immediate task.
During that task, the solar can certainly use spells to do the battle.
Spells that can be cast in battle, can certainly be casted by our solar, always within the bounds of the immediate task: battle.

Let's say that we're not fighting: I can ask the solar for something non complex, within the time limit of one round / level, remaining in the immediate task.
So I say: The pally guy is dead, can you raise him?
Do you want to pretend that casting a raise dead (or miracle to duplicate a resurrection) is a complex task? If you cast a wish to duplicate the effect of another spell that is useful in that immediate situation, is a complex task? What if, instead of the paladin, the dead guy is my assassin companion?

The obvious answer (IMO) is no. Casting a spell during the time limit of 1 round / level, is a simple and immediate task.

If you need to distinguish "it depends on the spell", or "IF the wish, or the miracle, is used to obtain something peculiar, then it's complex", or "raising the paladin is one thing, raising the assassin is another", this means that you're going outside RAW, to enter in the realm of DM's call.

Rogue Shadows

2013-02-08, 12:39 PM

Didn't you just refuse to answer my challenge because you thought I was trolling? If I were, this looks a lot like taking the troll bait.

To be completely fair, you've yet to provide an answer to my question:

Can you provide an example of an "involved" task that does not ping the "any other actions" clause of Immediate tasks?

Kelb_Panthera

2013-02-08, 01:00 PM

Well, I'll try to elaborate further my position.
You call a Solar to fight a battle. Unless it doesn't involve fighting a whole army (thus requiring a contract, 'cause it's not a simple skirmish), it's usually an immediate task.
During that task, the solar can certainly use spells to do the battle.
Spells that can be cast in battle, can certainly be casted by our solar, always within the bounds of the immediate task: battle.

Let's say that we're not fighting: I can ask the solar for something non complex, within the time limit of one round / level, remaining in the immediate task.
So I say: The pally guy is dead, can you raise him?
Do you want to pretend that casting a raise dead (or miracle to duplicate a resurrection) is a complex task? If you cast a wish to duplicate the effect of another spell that is useful in that immediate situation, is a complex task? What if, instead of the paladin, the dead guy is my assassin companion?

The obvious answer (IMO) is no. Casting a spell during the time limit of 1 round / level, is a simple and immediate task.

If you need to distinguish "it depends on the spell", or "IF the wish, or the miracle, is used to obtain something peculiar, then it's complex", or "raising the paladin is one thing, raising the assassin is another", this means that you're going outside RAW, to enter in the realm of DM's call.

Asking a solar, or any other creature, to cast a spell with an open-ended effect counts as a complex task, IMO. Because of the magic's open ended nature it's necessary to explain, in detail, what is desired so as to avoid miscommunication.

Wish's safelist prevents the spell from doing something other than what the caster of that spell intended but having another creature cast it for you requires acurately communicating your desire to him in a way that makes it sufficiently clear to avoid accidents in the case of a cooperative creature and so stringently as to be insubvertable to a hostile creature.

In the former case, wishing for common items or effects shouldn't be problematic but custom items and spell effects outside the safe-list would require describing arcane formulae to accurately convey the intended properties of the item or effect and would almost certainly take longer than the time-limit.

Miracle involves calling on direct deific intervention and is asking the creature to ask another creature for a favor. The miracle may fail or generate an outcome outside of the desired effect.

Let's see if I can head a couple objections to this off.

Talking is a free action, but 1 round is approximately 6 seconds. Just because you're not burning move or standard actions doesn't mean you can squeeze a 25 page document into a 6 second bout of loghorrea.
hearing things doesn't require an action, but actively listening does; a move action specifically. Therefore carefully listening to something that requires careful concentration and active listening to gain an accurate understanding requires the creature to take actions unless you're comfortable with him just listening casually and going with the gist of what you've described.

Even if you don't agree with the above points, it's painfully easy for the creature to avoid granting a wish. All it has to do is start singing at the top of its lungs once it ascertains your intention to get a wish for free. Either it does have to make the listen checks to hear you over the noise or you tell it to shut up and listen which it promptly does. When you finish it informs you that it shut up and listened as you asked and its task is now complete, then poofs home.

Raising the paladin or assassin is pretty straight-foward unless you demand he use raise-dead or some other spell he may not have prepared rather than leaving him to figure it out himself.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-02-08, 01:08 PM

To be completely fair, you've yet to provide an answer to my question:

Can you provide an example of an "involved" task that does not ping the "any other actions" clause of Immediate tasks?

I did make a response to that post.

I repeat; because "fighting in a single battle" is inclusive to "any other task that can be accomplished within 1 round per caster level," rather than exclusive to it, we have an established baseline of complexity.

If it's more complex than fighting in a single, short battle it's complex enough to trigger the more involved clause.

Killer Angel

2013-02-08, 01:39 PM

(snip)
Even if you don't agree with the above points, it's painfully easy for the creature to avoid granting a wish. (snip)

Your line of reasoning requires a thinkful DM, that goes beyond the RAW's holes. I certainly agree that there are lots of ambiguous rules, only I don't agree that the whole "immediate task" is one of them.
Given that I'm not going to check again the mail for today, can we agree to disagree? :smallwink:

Rogue Shadows

2013-02-08, 02:10 PM

I did make a response to that post.

I repeat; because "fighting in a single battle" is inclusive to "any other task that can be accomplished within 1 round per caster level," rather than exclusive to it, we have an established baseline of complexity.

If it's more complex than fighting in a single, short battle it's complex enough to trigger the more involved clause.

No, you've told me the way in which you're going to provide your example. You've yet to actually provide an example.

Phelix-Mu

2013-02-08, 03:08 PM

It seems to me that if you ask the solar to perform a task that might take little time, but which reasonably is not clear on that point, then it should ping the immediate task (since the task might finish in the 1 round/level), but the solar might judge that it will take longer (the solar knows more about its capabilities than the wizard...bear in mind the wizard doesn't have flawless knowledge of the MM entry), and it moves into being a contractual service.

I think the best example so far is searching for something. For purposes of the example, let's imagine that the solar isn't going to use a spell to easily find the item. The solar is very good at searching, and it might take less than a couple minutes. But neither the wizard or the solar know how long it might take (only the DM really has an idea on this point, and there is no basis for the DM to let the player character know this).

The task could be completed in the allotted time, but maybe not. Something vague like this, at first seeming to the wizard to be simple and fast, but maybe it's not. This would seem to be the definition of "more involved" single task that might resolve quickly, in the manner of an immediate task, but neither party involved in the gate can be sure, so time for a contract.

I think the lesson here is don't ask the solar for open-ended tasks, since the solar can justifiably argue that it's involved (how can we be sure that an attack won't happen during the search...now it takes much longer, maybe the solar gets something in its eye), and contract for it.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-02-08, 03:13 PM

Your line of reasoning requires a thinkful DM, that goes beyond the RAW's holes. I certainly agree that there are lots of ambiguous rules, only I don't agree that the whole "immediate task" is one of them.
Given that I'm not going to check again the mail for today, can we agree to disagree? :smallwink:
For an NPC to take action, the DM has to look at that NPC's description and decide how it would react to the situation at hand. If the DM is not allowed to interpret the NPC's goals, motives, and probable course of action then the NPC cannot act at all because the only actions it can take are those most beneficial to the player and, as we know, the TO DM can't show the player any favor or disfavor.

This is another one of the reasons I think this use of gate is unsuitable to TO, btw.

No, you've told me the way in which you're going to provide your example. You've yet to actually provide an example.

Ah. In that case the simple and most logical answer is "lead a battle." Act as the commander for a group of other called, summoned, or created minions on the PC's side of a short combat.

Snails

2013-02-08, 03:19 PM

HMS Invincible

2013-02-08, 03:36 PM

The problem with Gate is that it needs to be re-written because it steps on the toes of Summon Monster. If you want a powerful critter to obey, no questions asked, for 1 round per level, then use Summon Monster.

Gate should only be for tasks that a negotiable. Under certain circumstances that Solar may fight in this battle for 1 silver penny -- Diplomacy and a Good reputation has value.
If it weren't for the joke that is summon monster IX, I'd say Gate makes a nice capstone for the summon monster, planar binding, and teleport line of spells. If the Summon Monster list had a solar on it, would you complain how the PCs treated it? No, you'd let the PCs squeeze every ounce of utility out of it before the timer runs out. People routinely have monsters on the summon monster list cast spells for them, really the problem is that one of the spells is miracle which mimics wish. If miracle was just a divine version of shadow conjuration or shades, we wouldn't have such a big problem.

Rogue Shadows

2013-02-08, 04:06 PM

Ah. In that case the simple and most logical answer is "lead a battle." Act as the commander for a group of other called, summoned, or created minions on the PC's side of a short combat.

Alright, this raises a question. If you gate in a solar in order for it to fight a battle, and it proceeds to do so, but then during the course of the battle tells someone to "get down," or "look out" or "get behind me that I might shield the casters" or some such, does he then have to stop the battle and begin negotiating a contract? Or is the only action the solar can take during the course of the battle pure offense/defense with no thought for tactics or cohesion?

Also, now, you have to explain how using the wish spell-like ability that consumes three seconds of game time is of comparable complexity to directing a battle.

Mnemnosyne

2013-02-08, 04:12 PM

Ah. In that case the simple and most logical answer is "lead a battle." Act as the commander for a group of other called, summoned, or created minions on the PC's side of a short combat.
I would definitely disagree that leading a battle is in any way less complex than granting a wish. In order to lead a battle, the solar has to do a huge list of things:

Very quickly assess the capabilities of all those under its command (making knowledge checks to determine exactly what those capabilities are).
Make as quick an assessment as it can of the capabilities of its enemies (again, making knowledge checks to determine what those capabilities are).
Use the above information to determine the most dangerous enemies.
Decide which of the creatures under its command are most suited for incapacitating or defeating those dangerous enemies.
Determine what the best tactics for those creatures to use would be.
Quickly, efficiently, and ideally without knowledge by the enemy, communicate those orders to the creatures under its command.
Adapt to changing conditions on the battlefield, and reconsider its tactics as new information arises.

That is a lot of mental processing in a very short span of time. Is the solar capable of doing all this? Yes, he's probably got the abilities and the mental stats to do so. But does that really sound less complex than what he would have to do in order to grant a wish:

Listen to a brief description that won't take more than a minute and a half, maximum. And probably less than that.
Cast his wish spell-like ability in accordance with that description; possibly doing nothing more than repeating the exact phrasing of the description 'into' the wish.

And as I tried to note before, wish is an SLA that might, potentially, be used during a battle. While true that the solar is unlikely to need to resort to it in most circumstances, there are in fact situations where it might be the most effective course of action, and those situations can indeed come up during the course of a short battle.

I'm not arguing that gating solars should be allowed to be abused; as you note, there are other ways the solar could avoid granting a wish. I would say that anything with wish as a spell-like ability would probably have a regular policy of wishing up a crafted contingent spell that would instantly free it from control anytime it's summoned via gate. Perhaps using a wish or miracle in order to free itself. But...if a solar is gated in and it doesn't have such a contingency established...I do not think it can be justified by RAW to say that it is not obligated to grant a wish, if the caster specifies that as its immediate service.

Darius Kane

2013-02-08, 04:20 PM

Flickerdart

2013-02-08, 04:27 PM

Wish is a powerful, reality altering spell. I don't care if he can cast it at-will as a free action. One wrongly worded wish is all it takes to wreck you. And altering reality by command of some random mortal wizard makes the solar definitely "involved".
Whether or not the solar is involved in anything is not the issue. The issue is whether the task is involved (that is, extensive and complicated). Using a racial SLA is neither of those things, and as natural to the solar as breathing is to a human.

nedz

2013-02-08, 04:32 PM

Wish is a powerful, reality altering spell. I don't care if he can cast it at-will as a free action. One wrongly worded wish is all it takes to wreck you. And altering reality by command of some random mortal wizard makes the solar definitely "involved".

Since Solars are Good it might go something like this:

Wizard: "I cast Gate and Call a Solar"
*Solar Appears*
Wizard: "Mr. Solar I would like you to grant me the following Miracle blah, blah, ... blah"
Solar: "Are you sure ? That sounds awfully goofy to me"
Wizard: "Er, OK. How about blah, blah, ... blah
Solar: "Hmm, that still sounds iffy. Have you ever used a Miracle before ?"

Darius Kane

2013-02-08, 04:35 PM

As I said in my above post, I don't care how easy it is for the solar to cast a Wish. Using it isn't simple. Altering reality isn't simple.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-02-08, 04:44 PM

Alright, this raises a question. If you gate in a solar in order for it to fight a battle, and it proceeds to do so, but then during the course of the battle tells someone to "get down," or "look out" or "get behind me that I might shield the casters" or some such, does he then have to stop the battle and begin negotiating a contract? Or is the only action the solar can take during the course of the battle pure offense/defense with no thought for tactics or cohesion?False dichotomy. The solar is free to offer combat advice unless you specifically direct him not to but he's not obligated to consider how you or your allies might contribute in deciding how to defeat the enemy in any way nor are you or your allies bound magically or even verbally to follow any suggestions the creature offers.

Also, now, you have to explain how using the wish spell-like ability that consumes three seconds of game time is of comparable complexity to directing a battle.
It's not always. As I said in a previous post, it really only runs into a snag when you try to get a custom item or a magical effect outside of the norm; either of which would require either you explaining and him absorbing the arcane formulae necessary to properly apply the magic at his disposal -or- you'd have to take a chance on him getting it wrong because of a miscommunication or direct subversion.

I would definitely disagree that leading a battle is in any way less complex than granting a wish. Good thing that's not even implied by what I said.
In order to lead a battle, the solar has to do a huge list of things:

Very quickly assess the capabilities of all those under its command (making knowledge checks to determine exactly what those capabilities are).
Make as quick an assessment as it can of the capabilities of its enemies (again, making knowledge checks to determine what those capabilities are).
Use the above information to determine the most dangerous enemies.
Decide which of the creatures under its command are most suited for incapacitating or defeating those dangerous enemies.
Determine what the best tactics for those creatures to use would be.
Quickly, efficiently, and ideally without knowledge by the enemy, communicate those orders to the creatures under its command.
Adapt to changing conditions on the battlefield, and reconsider its tactics as new information arises.

That is a lot of mental processing in a very short span of time. Is the solar capable of doing all this? Yes, he's probably got the abilities and the mental stats to do so. But does that really sound less complex than what he would have to do in order to grant a wish:

Listen to a brief description that won't take more than a minute and a half, maximum. And probably less than that.
Cast his wish spell-like ability in accordance with that description; possibly doing nothing more than repeating the exact phrasing of the description 'into' the wish.
As I said before and more than once now. Directing a battle is an example of a task more complex than fighting in a battle. Wish doesn't need to be more complex than directing a battle only fighting in one.

And as I tried to note before, wish is an SLA that might, potentially, be used during a battle. While true that the solar is unlikely to need to resort to it in most circumstances, there are in fact situations where it might be the most effective course of action, and those situations can indeed come up during the course of a short battle. In those situations, the solar is deciding to use an ability at his disposal on his own behalf and knows exactly what he needs it to do, no muss, no fuss, no room for error or interpretation as long as he stays on the safe-list; something he's more than smart and wise enough to do.

I'm not arguing that gating solars should be allowed to be abused; as you note, there are other ways the solar could avoid granting a wish. I would say that anything with wish as a spell-like ability would probably have a regular policy of wishing up a crafted contingent spell that would instantly free it from control anytime it's summoned via gate. Perhaps using a wish or miracle in order to free itself. But...if a solar is gated in and it doesn't have such a contingency established...I do not think it can be justified by RAW to say that it is not obligated to grant a wish, if the caster specifies that as its immediate service.

For many uses of wish I'd agree, but not all.

I honestly don't see how arcane formulae that are extrapolated from spells that take pages to describe in the kind of efficient, if eldritch, types of notation that wizards must use and that take days, weeks, or even months to enact under normal circumstances can possibly be described in under 2 minutes.

Manually reading and absorbing the written instructions would be flatly impossible as it would require a day and a spellcraft check just to understand the spell that was the basis of the effect when it is presented in written form providing that there is only one spell for the effect desired.

There's also this one thing: fighting in a single battle -can- be as simple as "hit it with the epic sword until it stops moving." I don't know exactly what kind of mental gymnastics are required to activate a spell-like ability, but since it requires easily disrupted concentration I'm pretty sure it's more complex than what's necessary to raise and drop a sword again.

HMS Invincible

2013-02-08, 05:08 PM

Now you're just insulting swordmanship. D&D may give fighters the shaft, but it doesn't mean that melee combat is simplistic to the point of a really strong child could do it.

Btw, what's your position on gate again? I got lost in the details.

Flickerdart

2013-02-08, 05:13 PM

As I said in my above post, I don't care how easy it is for the solar to cast a Wish. Using it isn't simple. Altering reality isn't simple.
It is irrelevant that the effects of Wish are complicated. If the solar is called to push a button that triggers a hadron collider, the effects of the collider are incredibly complex, but the act required of the solar is very simple. Similarly, using the SLA is easy, and then the magic does all the work.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-02-08, 05:15 PM

Now you're just insulting swordmanship. D&D may give fighters the shaft, but it doesn't mean that melee combat is simplistic to the point of a really strong child could do it.It is when you have DR epic and nothing but the mighty (incredibly stupid) tarrasque can do any noteable damage to you.

Btw, what's your position on gate again? I got lost in the details.

It's an ambgiuously phrased spell that shouldn't be used in any TO excersizes because of that ambiguity, the necessity for the DM to assess the NPC's personality and base its reaction on this, and the fact that immediate tasks technically don't work at all under the very strictest interpretation of RAW.

It ticks off every box for things to avoid in TO yet it's still credited as a spell with theoretically limitless power. You want limitless power; grab your fiend-folio and shapechange into a zodar. It's clean, it's efficient, there's no need to interpret anything or involve an NPC of any kind.

Rogue Shadows

2013-02-08, 05:15 PM

Now you're just insulting swordmanship. D&D may give fighters the shaft, but it doesn't mean that melee combat is simplistic to the point of a really strong child could do it.

Indeed, even this is supported in the rules. Wizard VS Fighter, they each get their choice of non-magical weapon and armor, but absolutely no spellcasting at any point prior, during, or afterwards is allowed.

With a d4 HD, 1/2 BAB, and sucky proficiencies and feat options going up against a d10 HD, full BAB, nearly total proficiencies and the largest swath of feat choices in the game, I know which way I'd bet in that fight. Godlike the wizard may be with his spells, but take them away and he's a glorified Commoner.

It's not always. As I said in a previous post, it really only runs into a snag when you try to get a custom item or a magical effect outside of the norm; either of which would require either you explaining and him absorbing the arcane formulae necessary to properly apply the magic at his disposal -or- you'd have to take a chance on him getting it wrong because of a miscommunication or direct subversion.

EDIT: Actually, just read Flickerdart's previous post.

Darius Kane

2013-02-08, 05:19 PM

It is irrelevant that the effects of Wish are complicated. If the solar is called to push a button that triggers a hadron collider, the effects of the collider are incredibly complex, but the act required of the solar is very simple. Similarly, using the SLA is easy, and then the magic does all the work.
Except that you have to word the Wish. So yeah, it's more complicated than pushing a button. It's like pushing a button and then programing the hadron collider to not potentially blow up the country.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-02-08, 05:36 PM

Indeed, even this is supported in the rules. Wizard VS Fighter, they each get their choice of non-magical weapon and armor, but absolutely no spellcasting at any point prior, during, or afterwards is allowed.

With a d4 HD, 1/2 BAB, and sucky proficiencies and feat options going up against a d10 HD, full BAB, nearly total proficiencies and the largest swath of feat choices in the game, I know which way I'd bet in that fight. Godlike the wizard may be with his spells, but take them away and he's a glorified Commoner.

EDIT: Actually, just read Flickerdart's previous post.

The much simpler portrait of battle I've just outlined, and you agreed was a possibility, could also be used as the baseline of complexity. As I mentioned in the quoted passage -any- spell or spell-like ability could be interpreted as more complex than that.

Phelix-Mu

2013-02-08, 05:38 PM

I thought I made a good point regarding ambiguity between immediate and contractual tasks:

It seems to me that if you ask the solar to perform a task that might take little time, but which reasonably is not clear on that point, then it should ping the immediate task (since the task might finish in the 1 round/level), but the solar might judge that it will take longer (the solar knows more about its capabilities than the wizard...bear in mind the wizard doesn't have flawless knowledge of the MM entry), and it moves into being a contractual service.

I think the best example so far is searching for something. For purposes of the example, let's imagine that the solar isn't going to use a spell to easily find the item. The solar is very good at searching, and it might take less than a couple minutes. But neither the wizard or the solar know how long it might take (only the DM really has an idea on this point, and there is no basis for the DM to let the player character know this).

The task could be completed in the allotted time, but maybe not. Something vague like this, at first seeming to the wizard to be simple and fast, but maybe it's not. This would seem to be the definition of "more involved" single task that might resolve quickly, in the manner of an immediate task, but neither party involved in the gate can be sure, so time for a contract.

I think the lesson here is don't ask the solar for open-ended tasks, since the solar can justifiably argue that it's involved (how can we be sure that an attack won't happen during the search...now it takes much longer, maybe the solar gets something in its eye), and contract for it.

If the DM needs to be part of the equation to determine many of the actual effects of the spell (i.e., you ask the solar to do something open-ended, not telling the solar precisely how to do it, now the solar's problem-solving kicks in, totally DM ruling on how it works out), then the spell seems to be ill-suited for TO discussions. Since the very precise wording of the commands to the solar (or w/e) are largely a role playing exercise, also under the DM's purview, you really have to be very lawyer-esque in your commands. As I previously mentioned, even given a valid command, you can't make the called creature want to obey, and you may not even have control over all of its actions, since the creature does what you ask, not only what you ask (be sure to include that in your commands). The conniving word-parsing of the DM can come into play here, clearly more difficult to narrowly define exactly what the spell allows you to do. Probably even more so than wish, which at least clearly defines the effects that are explicitly within the scope of the spell, and the overreach that brings in DM interpretation.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-02-08, 05:39 PM

Whether or not the solar is involved in anything is not the issue. The issue is whether the task is involved (that is, extensive and complicated). Using a racial SLA is neither of those things, and as natural to the solar as breathing is to a human.

That's not true. You don't have to focus your will in an effort of easily broken concentration to breath.

Flickerdart

2013-02-08, 05:52 PM

Except that you have to word the Wish. So yeah, it's more complicated than pushing a button. It's like pushing a button and then programing the hadron collider to not potentially blow up the country.
"I wish for a scroll of gate" is not in any way comparable to programming Hello World, much less physics calculations. If the wish you wanted wasn't on the safe list, I could see some tenuous argument being made about having it be complicated, but if it's on the list, you just say what you want to happen and it happens and doesn't screw you over.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-02-08, 05:58 PM

"I wish for a scroll of gate" is not in any way comparable to programming Hello World, much less physics calculations. If the wish you wanted wasn't on the safe list, I could see some tenuous argument being made about having it be complicated, but if it's on the list, you just say what you want to happen and it happens and doesn't screw you over.

The necessary inclusion of an NPC interaction makes the underlined anything but guaranteed.

HalfGrammarGeek

2013-02-08, 06:06 PM

"I wish for a scroll of gate" is not in any way comparable to programming Hello World, much less physics calculations. If the wish you wanted wasn't on the safe list, I could see some tenuous argument being made about having it be complicated, but if it's on the list, you just say what you want to happen and it happens and doesn't screw you over.
QFT.

I get the sense that some posters here are conflating 3.x's wish with the wishes of earlier editions, which are always subject to DM perversion.

Darius Kane

2013-02-08, 06:30 PM

I never even played 3.0, let alone earlier than that.

Icewraith

2013-02-08, 06:40 PM

Phelix-Mu

2013-02-08, 06:51 PM

You can't use wish to duplicate gate. Only any non-banned list arcane spell of 8th level or lower can be duplicated.

Entirely possible that I don't know some trick that lets this work.

Rogue Shadows

2013-02-08, 07:00 PM

You can't use wish to duplicate gate. Only any non-banned list arcane spell of 8th level or lower can be duplicated.

Technically you don't need gate or even wish. What you need is planar binding, which is more than sufficient to bind a noble djinn (10 HD) and get three wishes.

It's just, gate gets you a solar, which is obviously better to have than a noble djinn.

The much simpler portrait of battle I've just outlined, and you agreed was a possibility,

I didn't agree it was a possibility. I asked you to outline how using an SLA which consumes 3 seconds of game time compares in complexity to the battle you outlined.

Flickerdart

2013-02-08, 11:22 PM

You can't use wish to duplicate gate. Only any non-banned list arcane spell of 8th level or lower can be duplicated.

Entirely possible that I don't know some trick that lets this work.
You can use wish to get a scroll of gate.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-02-09, 04:02 AM

Nitpicking difficulty doesn't really seem like the way to go here, considering that you could be Gating in the Solar to deal with run-of-the-mill bandits (why I don't know but you COULD) or an Archdevil/Demon Lord. The spell certainly seems to indicate that you should get CL rounds of combat out of the Solar before entering negotiation territory- no matter who your opponent is, fighting in one battle for CL rounds definitely does not require negotiation by the Gate rules.

Casting one wish is certainly simpler and far less hazardous than fighting Demogorgon for 22 rounds, and very well might require using aforementioned wish SLA. Wishing for something within the safe limits described by the wish spell (candle of invocation is under the 20k ceiling I believe) doesn't risk a mishap and only takes one round. Using Wish to duplicate another arcane spell (Gate) is also in the safe zone for wish.

Edit: Whoops, off by one error. Thought it was arcane 9th divine 8th, not arcane 8th divine 7th. Would sanctum spell nonsense or similar work?

The whole point of the TO exercise is doing things that the spell explicitly states you can do.The problem is that the PC isn't casting wish. An NPC is casting it on his behalf and while the NPC gets exactly what he wants if it's on the safelist the PC has to accurately convey what he wants. If the NPC doesn't want him to get what he wants then he has to convey his desire in an utterly unmistakeable fashion or get screwed over.

Technically you don't need gate or even wish. What you need is planar binding, which is more than sufficient to bind a noble djinn (10 HD) and get three wishes.

It's just, gate gets you a solar, which is obviously better to have than a noble djinn. You most certainly do need gate. Planar binding has a line, and I quote "Impossible demands or unreasonable commands are never agreed to," that prevents literally any action the DM deems inappropriate from being done without compensation.

I didn't agree it was a possibility. I asked you to outline how using an SLA which consumes 3 seconds of game time compares in complexity to the battle you outlined.

I didn't outline a battle. An immediate task battle can be resoved by the solar taking a single shot with his slaying bow and the enemy failing the fort-save VS death; a single standard action that provokes AoO's and requires no concentration. Using a spell-like ability also takes only a standard action and provokes an AoO but it does requires concentration.

There you go. Any use of a spell or spell-like ability can be considered more complex than fighting in a single battle because doing so takes the same action with the same risk, but the spells and spell-likes require concentration where the battle doesn't.

Killer Angel

2013-02-09, 05:10 AM

As I said in my above post, I don't care how easy it is for the solar to cast a Wish. Using it isn't simple. Altering reality isn't simple.

But it is simple. For the Solar is simple. He uses wish almost every day in its looooong life (one of the most common suggestion when we talk about gating solar, is "he already used the wish").
For a human, the correct casting can be difficult, but for a Solar, is like breathing air. Casting wish, is in its nature, he probably doesn't have even to think too much, 'cause he knows the tool.
It's like parking a car: if you're a freshdriver, it can be a difficult task, but actually, I can do it in one round without thinking, while speaking with someone else.
A Solar can cast a wish in one round, without even thinking about it. A Solar is one of the few creatures in the universe, that finds an easy and mundane task, the whole "altering reality" thing.

I didn't outline a battle. An immediate task battle can be resoved by the solar taking a single shot with his slaying bow and the enemy failing the fort-save VS death; a single standard action that provokes AoO's and requires no concentration. Using a spell-like ability also takes only a standard action and provokes an AoO but it does requires concentration.

There you go. Any use of a spell or spell-like ability can be considered more complex than fighting in a single battle because doing so takes the same action with the same risk, but the spells and spell-likes require concentration where the battle doesn't.

So, if I gate a Solar to fight, now the Solar cannot absolutely cast spells, cause an action that requires concentration, goes beyond the "immediate task"? This not only isn't RAW, but neither RAI. :smallannoyed:
Clarify the concept, please. I absolutely cannot agree on this.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-02-09, 05:39 AM

But it is simple. For the Solar is simple. He uses wish almost every day in its looooong life (one of the most common suggestion when we talk about gating solar, is "he already used the wish").
For a human, the correct casting can be difficult, but for a Solar, is like breathing air. Casting wish, is in its nature, he probably doesn't have even to think too much, 'cause he knows the tool.
It's like parking a car: if you're a freshdriver, it can be a difficult task, but actually, I can do it in one round without thinking, while speaking with someone else.
A Solar can cast a wish in one round, without even thinking about it. A Solar is one of the few creatures in the universe, that finds an easy and mundane task, the whole "altering reality" thing.

So, if I gate a Solar to fight, now the Solar cannot absolutely cast spells, cause an action that requires concentration, goes beyond the "immediate task"? This not only isn't RAW, but neither RAI. :smallannoyed:
Clarify the concept, please. I absolutely cannot agree on this.

It's certainly not RAI, but it is a very rules-lawyerish, absurd RAW. I'm not saying that battle can't be more complex than that.

I am saying battle really can be just that simple for this creature. Consequently, anything more complex than that can be taken to be more involved than the extremely simple task of fighting in a single battle.

Battle will rarely be that simple and for most creatures such a result is far, far less likely than it is for the solar, since it can only occur on a crit that does massive damage against a creature vulnerable to massive damage that also fails the fort save but there's simply no escaping the fact that, while rare, a battle can be resolved by a single attack which is unambiguously simpler than any other action that requires a standard action to enact.

I really didn't want to bring up this interpretation, since it is so obviously against RAI, but even this is still better than the strictest interpretation of RAW.

The strictest interpretation of raw makes even less sense. Immediate tasks are impossible because "The creature departs when the spell ends," and the instantaneous duration spell ended in the same instant it was cast. Therefore, you called it, gave it an immediate task, and it was gone.

Even if you refuse to accept the interpretation of battle being mind-blowingly simple, -any- use of the immediate task clause that does anything at all is a deviation from RAW, including a short battle.

Darius Kane

2013-02-09, 05:56 AM

But it is simple. For the Solar is simple. He uses wish almost every day in its looooong life (one of the most common suggestion when we talk about gating solar, is "he already used the wish").
Now that's a mighty assumption, one that is far from being a fact, unless you have some evidence.
Also: Having an ability =/= Using it every day. Especially when it's such powerful ability. Sure, maybe he's just pushing a button, but if he'll push the button enough times something will go wrong (Murphy's Law).

Killer Angel

2013-02-09, 06:26 AM

I really didn't want to bring up this interpretation, since it is so obviously against RAI, but even this is still better than the strictest interpretation of RAW.

OK, thanks for clarifying

Now that's a mighty assumption, one that is far from being a fact, unless you have some evidence.

I've got some assumption, and some evidence. Not conclusive, but better than nothing.

First assumption: as I've said, one of the most common suggestion when we talk about limiting the wish-chain when you gate a solar, is "he already used the wish".

Second assumption: the ultimate LG being, constantly involved in battling chaos and Evil, got one of the most powerful magical tools in the universe. it's more logical to assume that the solar uses this power at the end of each day, rather than leaving unused such potential (unless specified somewhere in some fluff I don't know of).

First Evidence: there were a couple of high level adventures for AD&D, where the group had to meet a Solar. One of them was a journey in gehenna, and the solar was without wish, 'cause he used it every morning to screen a city from the attention of the yugoloths. The logic conclusion is that Solars can devote their daily wish for specific tasks, to protect innocents.

Rogue Shadows

2013-02-09, 10:41 AM

There you go. Any use of a spell or spell-like ability can be considered more complex than fighting in a single battle because doing so takes the same action with the same risk, but the spells and spell-likes require concentration where the battle doesn't.

So in other words, you're defining "a single battle" in the simplest way that a battle could possibly go down, and saying that anything more complex than a single attack action constitutes "more involved."

Okay, first off, where exactly does it say that using a spell-like requires concentration?

Secondly, can you actually prove, using RAW, that using a spell-like ability - specifically, wish - requires more effort than making a single attack action? And we're talking "more effort" in D&D game terms, not fluff terms. I want to see necessary Concentration checks (needed to cast it, not needed to maintain it if damaged) or XP expenditure or something actually quantifiable.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-02-09, 11:27 AM

So in other words, you're defining "a single battle" in the simplest way that a battle could possibly go down, and saying that anything more complex than a single attack action constitutes "more involved."It's a valid, if unpleasantly restricting interpretation; so yes. Nothing specifies that when determining more involved you must use the most complex immediate task possible and nothing says you can't use the least.

Okay, first off, where exactly does it say that using a spell-like requires concentration?MM page 315.
Using a spell-like ability is a standard action unless noted otherwise, and doing so while threatened provokes an attack of opportunity. Then page 137 of the PHB
Performing a distracting act: some actions, ..., provoke attacks of opportunity as you divert your attention away from the battle.then back to the MM 315 again
A spell-like ability can be disrupted just as a spell can be. What disrupts a spell? PHB page 140
You must concentrate to cast a spell. If you can't concentrate (because you are on the deck of a storm-tossed ship for instance) you can't cast a spell) If you start casting a spell but something interferes with your concentration, such as an ogre hitting you with his club (succesfully hitting you with his attack of opportunity), you must make a concentration check to cast the spell.
Disrupting a spell is the result of disrupting the caster's concentration, therefore disrupting a spell-like ability must also be a result of disrupting the caster's concentration.

Secondly, can you actually prove, using RAW, that using a spell-like ability - specifically, wish - requires more effort than making a single attack action? And we're talking "more effort" in D&D game terms, not fluff terms. I want to see necessary Concentration checks (needed to cast it, not needed to maintain it if damaged) or XP expenditure or something actually quantifiable.I just showed how it requires concentration. You'd have to make the same concentration check to cast a SP on a storm-tossed vessel you'd have to make to cast a spell. As for your trying to discard the concentration check for damage, that makes no sense. An attack can be interupted by a readied action by being a ranged attack, but it doesn't require any concentration at all to follow through while a spell does. That alone should be proof that casting a spell or spell-like ability is more complex than making an attack.

Flickerdart

2013-02-09, 11:43 AM

Sure, maybe he's just pushing a button, but if he'll push the button enough times something will go wrong (Murphy's Law).
By that logic, you can't ask a gated creature to do anything, because something might go wrong and then...what? It suddenly doesn't fit in the scope of an immediate task?

Rogue Shadows

2013-02-09, 12:10 PM

I just showed how it requires concentration.

But you only make a concentration check if there's a reason to; otherwise, the task is either simple or rote enough to not require the check, only concentration in general, a vague term that could be equally applied to lighting a torch. For what reason would a solar gate'd into a ten-by-ten stone room with no one and nothing else in it but the caster of the gate need to make a concentration check? Using his wish under such a circumstance is either simple or rote, and in either case, does not require anything quantifiable in actual D&D terms other than the expenditure of a spell-like ability for the day.

You also realize that this applies to any spell or spell-like cast by the solar, yes? Under this logic I need to also negotiate a contract with the solar in order to get it to cast create water. Do you realize how fully and truly ridiculous that is?

It's a valid, if unpleasantly restricting interpretation; so yes. Nothing specifies that when determining more involved you must use the most complex immediate task possible and nothing says you can't use the least.

Is this perhaps because the immediate task clause only checks to see if the action qualifies as a single battle, without caring about how simple or complex the battle is? Nothing about gate suggests that it cares about the complexity of the single battle, as it simply says "a single battle," not "a single simple battle that can be resolved with a single attack action on the part of the gate'd creature."

Darius Kane

2013-02-09, 12:17 PM

By that logic, you can't ask a gated creature to do anything, because something might go wrong and then...what? It suddenly doesn't fit in the scope of an immediate task?
If it could potentially destroy reality? Sure.

Flickerdart

2013-02-09, 12:21 PM

If it could potentially destroy reality? Sure.
If you seriously think that a 9th level spell can destroy reality, you are severely overestimating the capabilities of magic.

Since you admitted you've never played 3e, perhaps reading its text (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wish.htm) and the definition of SLA (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#spellLikeAbilities) will be of some benefit.

Phelix-Mu

2013-02-09, 12:46 PM

The debate slogs on. You all have great stamina for this kind of nuanced argument. By now, I've pretty much resolved that gate will have to be houseruled to clarify what is or is not possible. What I'm looking at is two options:

1.) You want a creature to do something for free. Gate works like summon monster ix, with the following changes.
-It is (calling) not (summoning).
- You can choose up to three creatures from the summon monster ix list, but the resulting spell can't have opposed alignment descriptors.
-This version of gate allows perfect communication with the called creature.
- Some kind of reduction in the experience cost. Not sure how much.

2.) You pay for some other kind of service as described by contractual service in gate. You may call any creature up to 24HD. A called creature can decline service, so a caster would do well to call a creature that will most likely be willing to complete the service. If the creature declines, no experience is spent by the caster of gate, but the spell is still used up.

We avoid spurious calling of all-powerful critter to do flavor-of-the-day tasks for wizards, even in direct contravention of its alignment. We allow a powerful tactical option that allows calling of multiple powerful creatures for a long period of time, but without allowing calling of creatures with ill-defined abilities (mostly thinking of the solar's list of spells prepared here, not the SLAs). Option 1 also improves the efficiency of spell selection, making a powerful option for sorcerers.

I would still need to think on this fix. Not sure it solves all the problems, but a thorough write-up of it would try to be more thoroughly defined and clear. The spell as written allows for too much craziness.

Answerer

2013-02-09, 12:48 PM

No, gate is very clear. Kelb is just wrong. I simply stopped debating with him.

Phelix-Mu

2013-02-09, 12:57 PM

No, gate is very clear. Kelb is just wrong. I simply stopped debating with him.

I already laid out that, in my mind, there are tasks that are not instantly resolvable as immediate or contractual. By default, it seems to me that the solar is within rights to request a contract for many things that could be finished in the span of the immediate task, but which might not be under certain circumstances. My example, in an effort to be as simplistic as possible, was searching for something. Only the DM has an idea of the actual length of time the search might take, though the solar may have a better idea, and indeed, after receiving the contract, the solar may opt to use one of its powerful SLAs or spells to expedite the search. On the other hand, unless commanded to use said shortcuts, the solar could search by hand, taking as long as it wants.

This can be avoided by carefully commanding the called creature, but command interpretation and parsing is down to the DM, and any wiggle room given is wiggle room that an unwilling creature should probably be taking. Ergo, ill-defined result to casting the spell.

I for one feel the issue is best resolved by fixing the spell, not screwing the pc not careful enough to word things properly (though such screwing is within DM purview).

Kelb_Panthera

2013-02-09, 01:11 PM

But you only make a concentration check if there's a reason to; otherwise, the task is either simple or rote enough to not require the check, only concentration in general, a vague term that could be equally applied to lighting a torch. For what reason would a solar gate'd into a ten-by-ten stone room with no one and nothing else in it but the caster of the gate need to make a concentration check? Using his wish under such a circumstance is either simple or rote, and in either case, does not require anything quantifiable in actual D&D terms other than the expenditure of a spell-like ability for the day.If the ability didn't require concentration to use then a concentration check wouldn't be necessary to prevent it from being disrupted. Simple as that.

You also realize that this applies to any spell or spell-like cast by the solar, yes? Under this logic I need to also negotiate a contract with the solar in order to get it to cast create water. Do you realize how fully and truly ridiculous that is?I do. It's why I didn't want to have to resort to this argument. Interpreting the RAW this way means that asking the gated creature to do almost anything other than fight in a single battle requires a contract; which is likely much more stringent than was intended.

Is this perhaps because the immediate task clause only checks to see if the action qualifies as a single battle, without caring about how simple or complex the battle is? Nothing about gate suggests that it cares about the complexity of the single battle, as it simply says "a single battle," not "a single simple battle that can be resolved with a single attack action on the part of the gate'd creature."

The single battle is the baseline of complexity for the more involved clause to check against. It happens that the baseline is more of a range than a single point. A point on that range must be chosen for "more involved" to have meaning. It's up to the DM to choose where that point falls.

The simplest course is to choose either the highest or the lowest point in the range. Because there exists one or more ways to achieve NI caster levels, there is no upper limit. Therefore the simplest course is to choose the lowest point.

The alternative is that the contractual service clause is meaningless and, since strictest RAW also renders the immediate task clause moot, the entire calling portion of the spell cancels itself out.

Darius Kane

2013-02-09, 01:18 PM

If you seriously think that a 9th level spell can destroy reality, you are severely overestimating the capabilities of magic.
Apparently the concept of hyperbole is foreign to you.
But yeah. If you seriously think Wish is comparable to all other 9th level spells than you are severely underestimating it's capabilities.

Since you admitted you've never played 3e, perhaps reading its text (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wish.htm) and the definition of SLA (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#spellLikeAbilities) will be of some benefit.
Yes, I never played 3e. So why are you linking to 3.5 rules?

Flickerdart

2013-02-09, 01:22 PM

Apparently the concept of hyperbole is foreign to you.
But yeah. If you seriously think Wish is comparable to all other 9th level spells than you are severely underestimating it's capabilities.

The capabilities of Wish are pretty clearly laid out, and as long as you stay within them, nothing will go wrong. Maybe in your games, every time someone casts Wish the universe explodes, but the rules give it clear limits.

Yes, I never played 3e. So why are you linking to 3.5 rules?
Derp, I misread your post.

Darius Kane

2013-02-09, 01:37 PM

The capabilities of Wish are pretty clearly laid out, and as long as you stay within them, nothing will go wrong.
That's a metagame reasoning. But regardless, the notion that nothing will go wrong flies out the window when it's an NPC that is using the Wish, not you.

Answerer

2013-02-09, 01:40 PM

I already laid out that, in my mind, there are tasks that are not instantly resolvable as immediate or contractual.
The rules quite clearly delineate that those are the only two categories, and that fighting single battle or any other task that takes less than CL rounds is an immediate task, while all else is contractual.

So it's not a matter of ambiguity, it's a matter of you not liking the rules. Which is fine, because the rules are stupid, but you should be clear what you are saying. Your statement that "gate will have to be houseruled to clarify what is or is not possible" is not correct: the rules do not lack clarity, they're just poorly-considered and imbalanced. What is or is not possible, and what you need to do to accomplish each option, is quite clear.

Rogue Shadows

2013-02-09, 01:42 PM

That's a metagame reasoning. But regardless, the notion that nothing will go wrong flies out the window when it's an NPC that is using the Wish, not you.

True enough, to an extent, but that has nothing to do with whether or not you can get the solar to use wish in the first place. The question has nothing to do with the nature of the intended wish, only if using the wish is an immediate task or a contractual service.

The single battle is the baseline of complexity for the more involved clause to check against. It happens that the baseline is more of a range than a single point. A point on that range must be chosen for "more involved" to have meaning. It's up to the DM to choose where that point falls.

But it also means that the furthest edge of the range can be checked; i.e., "a single battle" is a multiple-round engagement requiring movement, attack, SLAs up to and including wish, and so forth and so on.

The spell does not distinguish between the simplest or the most complex of battles except to state that a battle of longer than 1 round/CL requires a contractual service.

The DM gets to choose where the point falls in any given game, but in TO the point falls across the entire possible range because the strictest reading of the rules make it so.