What do you do if your DM doesn't let you do what you want to do?

[sorcererlover]

I've began playing with a new DM, but he won't let me play my sorcerer the way I want to.

At first I was going mailman, but then out of nowhere he says he's banning PHB2, so now I can't get arcane thesis and my mailman is ruined. It's bad enough I couldn't get incantatrix.

So then I said "fine", and grabbed planar binding and charm monster to salvage my now worthless build. I bound a ghaele, and charmed it successfully, but then he said that holding an outsider in a magic circle is a hostile act by itself so the charm monster breaks immediately. He said keeping him inside the circle alone is "threatening" him.

We argued for a while after that. I said planar binding isn't hostile, you're just summoning a creature for negotiations, but he keeps repeating "you wouldn't hold a friend in a trap", which is ridiculous. In fiendish codex the only way cultists can summon a devil is through planar binding, and by RAW you need the magic circle to summon anything with planar binding. By his logic nothing can be charmed because the charm effect itself is hostile.

So I finally gave up and said I'll pay for the ghaele's services, but now he says ghaele would never serve me because you're lawful evil.

I wanna walk. Should I walk? He ruined my mailman, he won't let me bind ghaeles, he won't let me charm ghaeles, and who knows what else he won't let me do.

What do you do when your DM is like this?

[Fenryr]

He's new because you recently met him or he's new 'cause he has never been a DM before?

If it's the second reason it seems he wants to keep a certain power level. I can understand that. You should talk to him and help him improve his powergame and skills.

Not gonna say a thing about Planar Binding because I am not used to it. But the ghaele... They're CG. They should not work with you unless it's for a better good.

[Khedrac]

Talk to him

It sounds like you are trying to optimize heavily - is anyone else doing so? If it's just you the DM may not be used to major optimization and not know how to (or want to) run for it, not to mention how you could render everyone else useless.

Looking at what you have said so far:

"mailman" - just by using the name you are saying you want to play a character designed to break encounters - things are immune or dead.
As for summon + charm - to a major extent I agree with him - devils etc. are kept in a circle once summoned because they need to be forced into pacts. If you want to be friendly to a summoned creature break the circle as soon as it is summoned to let it out.
And yes, Eladrin's are Chaotic Good so the chances of them wanting anything to do with a Lawful Evil person is very, very small (though how it knows your alignment is a question).
If you do want to summon then charm one, summon it, break the circle and play nice - then hit it with the charm.
Planar Binding is not friendly to the summoned creatures - nothing likes being bound like that - Planar Ally is the spell if you want a co-operative summoned creature.

Oh, if you build really has been made useless (something very hard to do with T1 classes, blaster sorcerors are very effective even when not a "mailman") then the DM will probably be willing to allow you to rebuild it, just don't try to trample all over the DM's game.

[Eldan]

Can I just say that that seems perfectly reasonable to me as far as banning goes? Incantatrix is far more power than I guess most DMs are comfortable with, as is Arcane Thesis. Especially together. And I might not agree on the charm, but binding an Eladrin as LE is iffy.

The issue is probably communication. So, I recommend talking this out. Which really is the solution for most problems. Sit down with your DM. Plan out the character with him. Talk with him about every option you want to take and what strategies you intend to use.

There's really not much more to say. What does the rest of the group look like?

[sorcererlover]

He's new because you recently met him or he's new 'cause he has never been a DM before?

If it's the second reason it seems he wants to keep a certain power level. I can understand that. You should talk to him and help him improve his powergame and skills.

Not gonna say a thing about Planar Binding because I am not used to it. But the ghaele... They're CG. They should not work with you unless it's for a better good.


Talk to him

It sounds like you are trying to optimize heavily - is anyone else doing so? If it's just you the DM may not be used to major optimization and not know how to (or want to) run for it, not to mention how you could render everyone else useless.

Looking at what you have said so far:

"mailman" - just by using the name you are saying you want to play a character designed to break encounters - things are immune or dead.

Our group is not low-op, we got a wizard following treantmonk's focused specialist build to the letter.
Mailman is the term I give to sorcerers who blast things. It doesn't work without at least arcane thesis, otherwise you're just looking at the occasional maximized fireball most of the game. Mailman isn't a game breaker unless you actually go a dragonwrought kobold incantatrix who gets arcane spellsurge. I also forgot to mention he banned residual magic outright. I've ran successful mailman sorcerers with only residual magic and arcane thesis, but with both banned it's over.



As for summon + charm - to a major extent I agree with him - devils etc. are kept in a circle once summoned because they need to be forced into pacts. If you want to be friendly to a summoned creature break the circle as soon as it is summoned to let it out.
And yes, Eladrin's are Chaotic Good so the chances of them wanting anything to do with a Lawful Evil person is very, very small (though how it knows your alignment is a question).
If you do want to summon then charm one, summon it, break the circle and play nice - then hit it with the charm.
Planar Binding is not friendly to the summoned creatures - nothing likes being bound like that - Planar Ally is the spell if you want a co-operative summoned creature.

Oh, if you build really has been made useless (something very hard to do with T1 classes, blaster sorcerors are very effective even when not a "mailman") then the DM will probably be willing to allow you to rebuild it, just don't try to trample all over the DM's game.

I care deeply about the fluff, but dominate monster is a level 9 spell, so whenever I use planar binding, I use charm monster to get it to serve me since I never play a character with the same alignment as my previous character. He's saying charm monster breaks immediately because magic circle against alignment is threatening the outsider at all times. Are you saying you agree with this statement?

The ghaele was my backup plan of salvaging my ruined sorcerer. I run out of spells too quickly right now, so i was planning on using a ghaele to play a "normal" cleric in addition to my sorcerer. It was bad enough I was worthless for the early levels because as a true blaster, I've been spamming lesser orb of acids.


Can I just say that that seems perfectly reasonable to me as far as banning goes? Incantatrix is far more power than I guess most DMs are comfortable with, as is Arcane Thesis. Especially together. And I might not agree on the charm, but binding an Eladrin as LE is iffy.

The issue is probably communication. So, I recommend talking this out. Which really is the solution for most problems. Sit down with your DM. Plan out the character with him. Talk with him about every option you want to take and what strategies you intend to use.

There's really not much more to say. What does the rest of the group look like?

I agree binding a CG creature as LE is iffy, which is why I was charming them. An evil character will mind control everything to serve her cause, and it is completely in the power of charm monster to get a CG character to fight for you.

As I mentioned before, I have a focused conjuration specialist following treantmonk's guide to the letter with nerve skitter, celerity and craft contingency, a cleric rolling as a thaumaturgist zen archery crossbow gish with summons, and fighter/wizard/abjurant champion/eldritchknight gish who is planning on getting persistent wraithstrike.

I have talked with the DM, and he said don't do anything that doesn't make sense or anything broken. He claims craft contingency is balanced because it needs an XP cost but residual magic and arcane thesis aren't balanced. Yeah right, having infinite actions per round is more balanced than stacking metamagic. He also says charm monster merely makes the guy "friendly" and he is only marignally helpful (he's looking at diplomacy), but charm monster is not a diplomacy attitude changer! It's a mind-affecting spell that lets you control a guy like a puppet if you have the charisma to mold your words into pleasant suggestions, like an evil king's adviser in so many movies, except easier, because he is drugged with magic.

Sorry if I sound a bit angry. I am angry, and I have a hard time hiding it :(

I have no intention of playing a standard character. I hate them. I will never focus solely on BFC, and want to do something awe-inspiring or something intellectually stimulating, but this guy is railroading me. Who knows what other creative things he won't let me do? Now I'm just gonna be a liability for the rest of the campaign, actually, the ENTIRE campaign since I was a liability before all this happened. I was looking forward to reaching level 12, but after the arcane thesis ban I waited until level 13, and now with the weirdo charm monster ruling... ARGH!

[Eldan]

Uhm, no. That is really, explicitely not what charm does. Charm person says "treat the target's attitude as friendly". Attitudes are defined in the diplomacy section. It also says that you don't control the creature, it just becomes friendly and you seem a bit more reasonable to it than you really are.

Apart from that, yeah. Again. Talk to your DM. Ask him what's okay and what not in detail. And, most importantly, do it before a game. Tell him in the friendliest terms that you aren't sure what he means by overpowered. Prepare a few vague options and discuss them with him, then build something you can both accept.

He obviously allows quite powerful characters, but it might depend on whether he doesn't know they are powerful or merely dislikes certain types.

He might just be one of those DMs who hate high damage numbers. In that case, go for a status effect caster and problem solver.

Also, something that is quite reasonable and that I also dislike as a DM: I don't like it whne people effectively play two characters. Animal companions, supermounts, long-term bindings, leadership, anything like that. It slows down an already slow game and gives one player twice as many options.

[sorcererlover]

You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn’t ordinarily do.

translation: I win the charisma check, it performs my orders, and only if it's something they don't ordinarily do. No check needed to get a planetar to help me fight a pit fiend, but a check is needed to get it to help me, a lawful evil character, fight some bandits. Make it abandon its deity? Depends if I can convince him his deity is actually an evil monster disguised as a god, but that doesn't matter because I would never ask it to do something that extreme.

Protection from evil

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

so protection from evil says charm spells grant the caster ongoing control.

Anyways, I dunno if I can talk with him for an acceptable build for the both of us. I get a strong hint he wants me to go pure bfc like a standard guy, or do a gimped out mailman, as in only empower and maximized spells.

[Eldan]

It doesn't quite say what you can or cannot convince it of with that. That's one of the situations where I'd say it's the DM's right to make his own interpretations.

[sorcererlover]

It doesn't quite say what you can or cannot convince it of with that. That's one of the situations where I'd say it's the DM's right to make his own interpretations.

At times like these, I look at pathfinder errata, as I have been playing pathfinder for a while. It says you can get a charmed orc to kill its wife and child, but the orc may opt to commit suicide instead. They also say you can get a charmed orc to fight skeletons for you, but you need a charisma check to make it till fields for you. The spell is identical in both 3.5 and pathfinder, so their erratas are a viable interpretation.

But he's not arguing this right now. He's arguing that keeping a guy inside a magic circle is an ongoing threatening hostile action that breaks the charm spell immediately after success.

edit: Calmed down a bit, thanks Eldan. I know that the DM wants his players to play a certain way for his campaign, but he should realize that players want to play their own way too. I'm not breaking anything campaign related. Everything I do just affects combat, and is nothing compared to this focused specialist I'm next to.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Your DM is right on not allowing charm to work against a planar bound creature but he's wrong about why. The creature is inside the AoE of a magic circle against X spell.and enjoys the protection from charm and domination effects that entails even if he doesn't "enjoy" any of the rest of the spell's effect.

[atemu1234]

As to the threatening with the circle rule, it makes a certain amount of sense, mostly because it's CG, you're LE.

[Deox]

Firstly, are you playing 3.5 or Pathfinder? Or a mix? If it is solely 3.5, then throw any PF (and subsequent errata) out the window, as it isn't applicable.

Secondly, Arcane Thesis and Incantatrix are not required for a 'mailman' build in the least. They are often suggested, but highly dependent on the optimization level of the group. In a seasoned player's hands, those two things could lead to one-shotting pretty much anything.

Thirdly, the wizard is a focused specialist in what? By your own admission, he's playing Treantmonk's wizard to the letter, which means, he's doing battlefield control, buffing and debuffing. Sounds like he's being a good team-player. In fact, by doing those things, he's making it even more apparent that an Incantarix with Arcane Thesis isn't needed.

The way it is coming across (to me, that is) is "I want X and this DM is terrible because he allows all but X"

[Khedrac]

Your DM is right on not allowing charm to work against a planar bound creature but he's wrong about why. The creature is inside the AoE of a magic circle against X spell.and enjoys the protection from charm and domination effects that entails even if he doesn't "enjoy" any of the rest of the spell's effect.

Which goes back to my suggestion - break the circle before you cast charm - apologize for using the circle (something like you don't actually know the planar ally spells) and act all reasonable until it's off guard - then cast Charm Monster.

And yes, if you read the spell description, charm monster is like charm person which only makes it treat you as friendly - it is not a control spell. Yes Prot. v. alignment blocks enchantment (charm) effects that grant ongoing control - that is not the same thing as saying all enchantment (charm) spells gran ongoing control.
In fact, there is a reasonable argument that Charm spells are not blocked because they do not grant control, but I agree that casting one on something in a confining circle is not going to come out well.
Anyway I don't think Charm Monster is anything like enough to get it to come with you - it might heal anyone injured at that time as a favor that's far from certain - after all they are your friends not its.

Edit: (which goes back to what I said first - talk) if you feel that you are underperforming compared to the others, then as the DM is he has any suggestions... Apart from the PHB2 ban, it looks to me like he is trying to run the rules the way he understand them.

[Yahzi]

He's clearly wrong about the charm spell. However, he has a point: keeping somebody locked up is kind of a hostile act. So, as soon as you cast your charm spell, you have to lower the circle.

Now if you're worried your charm didn't take (because really how do you know if he made his save or not until you ask him to do something?), then you might want to cast a detection spell first. But that, again, seems kind of hostile: you can't say to your victim, "Hang on I want to make sure I am in control of your mind" and expect him to still be charmed.

So either you make a Bluff check ("I'm just checking to make sure you're not still under the evil control of an outsider") or you will have to cast your charm spell and take the risk that it worked. If it didn't, then you're in for a fight.

Suggest this approach to your DM. He might be more willing to let you do things like this if they aren't auto-win risk free cheap shots. In fact in general that might be a good approach about the entirety of your character's build.

[Dread_Head]

As I mentioned before, I have a focused conjuration specialist following treantmonk's guide to the letter with nerve skitter, celerity and craft contingency

How're they running Celerity if PHBII is banned?

Have you pointed out to your GM in a calm manner that you feel he is banning things for you but letting other characters take more or as powerful options. I'd have no problem with a GM banning or tinkering with everything you've mentioned as they are all potentially gamebreaking but if they're not applying the same standards to everyone's character then I'd also be annoyed.

You are wrong if you think that charm lets you control their actions, it just makes them more likely to help you in a reasonable manner. It is most definitely not dominate, or even suggestion. However this is a GM dependent thing, if you've had previous GM's who were more lax about this then you need to consider that it's a matter of opinion on how far charm goes and different GM's will rule differently.

Rather than binding a Ghaele could you not bind a creature more inclined to ally with you?

[sorcererlover]

Your DM is right on not allowing charm to work against a planar bound creature but he's wrong about why. The creature is inside the AoE of a magic circle against X spell.and enjoys the protection from charm and domination effects that entails even if he doesn't "enjoy" any of the rest of the spell's effect.

It's bound inwards so instead of protecting creatures inside the circle, it's protecting creatures outside the circle. And even if you're right it's a simple matter of destroying the circle after a successful casting, because protection merely suppresses.


As to the threatening with the circle rule, it makes a certain amount of sense, mostly because it's CG, you're LE.

Interesting point my DM never raised, but consider this. You, a CG, find a nice smell, or something alluring. You follow it because you lost your will save, and now you're trapped in a net-trap, and hanging on a branch, struggling, and then a guy stands beneath you. Is he threatening you?

If I have my spear pointed to his face, then yes. If I have arrows aimed at him, then yes, but if I'm standing still, I'm not threatening him. He may feel insecure due to the whole situation, but I'm not threatening him!


Which goes back to my suggestion - break the circle before you cast charm - apologize for using the circle (something like you don't actually know the planar ally spells) and act all reasonable until it's off guard - then cast Charm Monster.

And yes, if you read the spell description, charm monster is like charm person which only makes it treat you as friendly - it is not a control spell. Yes Prot. v. alignment blocks enchantment (charm) effects that grant ongoing control - that is not the same thing as saying all enchantment (charm) spells gran ongoing control.
In fact, there is a reasonable argument that Charm spells are not blocked because they do not grant control, but I agree that casting one on something in a confining circle is not going to come out well.
Anyway I don't think Charm Monster is anything like enough to get it to come with you - it might heal anyone injured at that time as a favor that's far from certain - after all they are your friends not its.

Edit: (which goes back to what I said first - talk) if you feel that you are underperforming compared to the others, then as the DM is he has any suggestions... Apart from the PHB2 ban, it looks to me like he is trying to run the rules the way he understand them.

Huh, you edited before I could reply. I don't like this DM because he won't let me do what I want, and he probably doesn't like me either. So why I posted this thread. What do I do? Because I have absolutely no intention of playing a character I find extremely boring and unintuitive. I agreed to play because I saw arcane thesis isn't banned, and now that's banned, I went my all-contingency backup plan, and he won't allow that either


He's clearly wrong about the charm spell. However, he has a point: keeping somebody locked up is kind of a hostile act. So, as soon as you cast your charm spell, you have to lower the circle.

Now if you're worried your charm didn't take (because really how do you know if he made his save or not until you ask him to do something?), then you might want to cast a detection spell first. But that, again, seems kind of hostile: you can't say to your victim, "Hang on I want to make sure I am in control of your mind" and expect him to still be charmed.

So either you make a Bluff check ("I'm just checking to make sure you're not still under the evil control of an outsider") or you will have to cast your charm spell and take the risk that it worked. If it didn't, then you're in for a fight.

Suggest this approach to your DM. He might be more willing to let you do things like this if they aren't auto-win risk free cheap shots. In fact in general that might be a good approach about the entirety of your character's build.

Way I envisioned it is the called outsider wants to outright kill me or escape, I charm it, then say "Hey friend, lets go kill some bandits" and if I win the charisma check I remove the circle. By RAW you need the circle to even cast planar binding. I forgot to mention I don't keep a called creature in a magic circle for more than a few rounds.


How're they running Celerity if PHBII is banned?

Have you pointed out to your GM in a calm manner that you feel he is banning things for you but letting other characters take more or as powerful options. I'd have no problem with a GM banning or tinkering with everything you've mentioned as they are all potentially gamebreaking but if they're not applying the same standards to everyone's character then I'd also be annoyed.

You are wrong if you think that charm lets you control their actions, it just makes them more likely to help you in a reasonable manner. It is most definitely not dominate, or even suggestion. However this is a GM dependent thing, if you've had previous GM's who were more lax about this then you need to consider that it's a matter of opinion on how far charm goes and different GM's will rule differently.

Rather than binding a Ghaele could you not bind a creature more inclined to ally with you?

He probably forgot celerity was in PHB2 instead of SpC.

Maybe I should go back to pathfinder, at least then I can shove erratas in everyone's faces >:\.

I could've binded someone other than ghaele, but that was our breaking point for that session.

I shouldn't have defended my position in this thread, as the discussion became who is right and who is wrong. My question is, if there is a DM that wouldn't let you do what you want to do, what do you do? Do you walk? Do you just grin and bear it and let him control how you play your character? Lot of people suggested talking, but I dunno. He wants me to just use empower and maximize for most of the game, and I don't. The joy of a blaster was high numbers. If I do continue I gotta spend all my money on stacking rods of maximize.

[atemu1234]

Interesting point my DM never raised, but consider this. You, a CG, find a nice smell, or something alluring. You follow it because you lost your will save, and now you're trapped in a net-trap, and hanging on a branch, struggling, and then a guy stands beneath you. Is he threatening you?

If I have my spear pointed to his face, then yes. If I have arrows aimed at him, then yes, but if I'm standing still, I'm not threatening him. He may feel insecure due to the whole situation, but I'm not threatening him!

Or if you're the one who threw the net. Also, are you comparing a being that is as old as several planes of existence and more intelligent than most wisemen to a badger that smelled honey?

[sorcererlover]

Or if you're the one who threw the net. Also, are you comparing a being that is as old as several planes of existence and more intelligent than most wisemen to a badger that smelled honey?

It's an analogy. Planar binding lures the outsider into the trap on a failed will save, so I said an alluring smell.
I wouldn't be the one throwing the net, I'd be the one who sets up the net and hides it under tree leaves, and once the guy triggers the trap, the net would automatically go up and keep him hanged like a fish in a fish net.

He may feel threatened depending on how you interpret the word, but I'm not threatening him, and even if I was, after I cast charm monster, no one should be feeling threatened. If I was your friend and I caught you in a trap, and I'd say "got you!" would you feel threatened?

edit: Lets not talk about who is right or wrong. I am too angry to be persuaded that I was wrong. Can we talk about what you guys do? Specifically, what happens if the one side stays stubborn?

[atemu1234]

It's an analogy. Planar binding lures the outsider into the trap on a failed will save, so I said an alluring smell.
I wouldn't be the one throwing the net, I'd be the one who sets up the net and hides it under tree leaves, and once the guy triggers the trap, the net would automatically go up and keep him hanged like a fish in a fish net.

He may feel threatened depending on how you interpret the word, but I'm not threatening him, and even if I was, after I cast charm monster, no one should be feeling threatened. If I was your friend and I caught you in a trap, and I'd say "got you!" would you feel threatened?

edit: Lets not talk about who is right or wrong. I am too angry to be persuaded that I was wrong. Can we talk about what you guys do? Specifically, what happens if the one side stays stubborn?

But you're a complete stranger. If you walked up to me after a net sprung on me, yeah, I'd be pretty threatened.

Also, in this case, you need to get over it. Convince your DM to let you retrain your build into something he will allow, since he obviously sprung this on you last minute.

[Darkweave31]

Well, by the rules of charm person/monster, the spell does not immediately break if the creature is threatened. Rather, they get a +5 bonus on their save. That said, there are far better ways to ensure a creature does your bidding than charm. Look up the malconvoker handbook for some examples.

I'm siding with your DM here at least for banning arcane thesis and incantatrix. What isn't sitting well with me is that it sounds like you came in with a build goal in mind, started investing resources towards it, then the rules changed and you could no longer do what you wanted. Have you asked to work with the DM to rebuild your character to an appropriate power level for the game since your intended build is no longer possible?

[sorcererlover]

I'm siding with your DM here at least for banning arcane thesis and incantatrix. What isn't sitting well with me is that it sounds like you came in with a build goal in mind, started investing resources towards it, then the rules changed and you could no longer do what you wanted. Have you asked to work with the DM to rebuild your character to an appropriate power level for the game since your intended build is no longer possible?

No, I haven't asked him anything.

You're exactly right why I have a problem with this. He sprung it on me suddenly. If I knew it wasn't allowed I wouldn't have joined his group.

Everyone's suggestions is to talk to him and rebuild my character. Alright, I'll go dig up one of my past sorcerer builds I liked and see if he likes any of them.

[Malak'ai]

Or try a different class altogether?

As for what I'd do; I'd do what everyone else is suggesting... Talk to the DM! Work with him to find a solution.

One thing that starts bothering me when I DM is some players insistance that they can do what ever they want. While in general, yes, you can but just remember sometimes we DM's have to put our foot down and say No.

In the case of your DM, I personally agree that an Outsider stuck within a "Circle of Protection from X" would consider anything on the otherside of the circle threatening... You use the analogy of a person standing still under animal trapped in a net, hanging from a branch. Now true, the person isn't doing anything directly threatening, but think of it from the animals point of view... Wandering around the forest floor, looking for food/a mate/whatever. Smell something nice. Find nice smellinging thing... Try to take a biWHAOOOO! WHAT THE HELL!!! I'm now upside down, my body is bound and I'm hanging from a gods damed tree! This is not good! What the hell's happening? What am I going to do?!?! What the hell's that weird looking thing down there? Why's it just looking at me? What does it want?
If that's not similar how you think an Outsider would react then that's something you'll have to deal with.

With saying that, I do totally disagree with retro-actively banning things mid game, UNLESS it was made extremely clear that the DM was letting you use it to see how it would work out, then he'd make a perminant decision about it.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

How many times does a RAW question come up and people automatically try to argue in favor of the less overpowered ruling, no matter what...

Charm Monster works on bound creatures, because being captured is not the same as being threatened. They are two different things. It's not some no-risk cheap shot; it has a save that can be passed. And even then you still have to make an opposed charisma check. The way to shut down Planar Binding is to, very clearly and from the start of the game, tell players that's not a road you want to go down. That's it. Own up to it. Pretending it works and it's allowed, and then leaning on biased and faulty interpretations, is just passive aggressive.

If this DM is banning things as you're taking them, and then not allowing you to re-design your character based on this new information, that's bad form. If he's allowing Craft Contingent Spell and Celerity for one character but not Arcane Thesis for another, that's bad form. How you want to deal with it is up to your group. Here are some options, all of which you should consider only after sleeping it off:

1. Bow out. If the game just isn't fun without being a real mailman, this could be the best option.
2. Ask to re-do some of your character choices based upon this new ban list. You can make interesting non-blasty sorcerers. If you do this, you also want to ask for a consistent, static ban list to set up proper expectations. Then just take the interesting stuff that remains. At the very least you can have a sorcerer with Celerity and Craft Contingent Spell. Maybe he doesn't ban Polymorph and you go nuts.
3. Ask to introduce a new character, with a clear list of what's allowed and not allowed, and then make a competitive character with that.

Good luck!

[Kelb_Panthera]

It's bound inwards so instead of protecting creatures inside the circle, it's protecting creatures outside the circle. And even if you're right it's a simple matter of destroying the circle after a successful casting, because protection merely suppressess.

Doesn't matter.


All creatures within the area gain the effects of a protection from evil spell, and no nongood summoned creatures can enter the area either. You must overcome a creature’s spell resistance in order to keep it at bay (as in the third function of protection from evil), but the deflection and resistance bonuses and the protection from mental control apply regardless of enemies’ spell resistance.

Note the bold, which is then reinforced by


If a creature too large to fit into the spell’s area is the subject of the spell, the spell acts as a normal protection from evil spell for that creature only.

A DM -could- rule that the latter is an alternate effect that results from user error on the caster's part but the way it's written -strongly- implies that focusing the circle inward doesn't change the fact it protects the creature in its AoE from charms and compulsion per protection from X. If it was meant to be a third alternate effect it would have been its own clause instead of being tacked onto the end of the second.

This interpretation also has the advantage of cutting off exactly the kind of abuse you were resorting to in retaliation for the percieved slight your DM leveled against you before it even starts. Trying to bypass the bargaining portion of planar binding is in bad form under most circumstances. Your DM reactively nerfing you because of fear of blaster power isn't cool but neither is trying to break his campaign in retaliation.

Not that it ultimately matters anyway. Coure, like all eladrins, are under a constant magic circle effect that they naturally produce anyway.

[RoboEmperor]

A DM -could- rule that the latter is an alternate effect that results from user error on the caster's part but the way it's written -strongly- implies that focusing the circle inward doesn't change the fact it protects the creature in its AoE from charms and compulsion per protection from X. If it was meant to be a third alternate effect it would have been its own clause instead of being tacked onto the end of the second.

I disagree. The bound inward description came after all that protection stuff, and used the word "alternate version", so I believe that's not the case. It wouldn't make sense if an evil creature is protected by evil. It's either bound outward and everyone inside is protected, or it's bound inward and everyone is protected from the guy inside.

You're right about the "it doesn't matter" part. Ghaeles have a persistent aura of magic circle against evil.

[sorcererlover]

I'm gonna probably walk. The party was doing well with a suboptimal blaster, they'll do fine without me, and the DM jacked me. I'll just tell him if he doesn't unban PHB2 or residual magic (not both), it's your fault I'm walking because I joined this game specifically to do that.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I disagree. The bound inward description came after all that protection stuff, and used the word "alternate version", so I believe that's not the case. It wouldn't make sense if an evil creature is protected by evil. It's either bound outward and everyone inside is protected, or it's bound inward and everyone is protected from the guy inside.

You're right about the "it doesn't matter" part. Ghaeles have a persistent aura of magic circle against evil.

That just plain doesn't work. The magic circle does almost nothing to protect those outside of it from the bound creature. In fact the spell goes to great lengths to say that the bound creature can attack those outside of it quite easily unless it has no ability to reach them. Turned inward, the spell prevents the creature from leaving the area without employing dimensional traveling magic but that's it.

My conclusion is based mostly in linguistic analysis of the spell's description and game balance concerns. The only way to interpret the spell the other way is to focus on the trap angle. It's odd, logically, that a trap would offer protection to its target but it's only one aspect of the spell's normal version turned the other way. That the spell's other effects would continue to radiate from is center point even makes a certain amount of sense from a verisimilitude standpoint.

I just really don't see a strong case for that interpretation.

[RoboEmperor]

That just plain doesn't work. The magic circle does almost nothing to protect those outside of it from the bound creature. In fact the spell goes to great lengths to say that the bound creature can attack those outside of it quite easily unless it has no ability to reach them. Turned inward, the spell prevents the creature from leaving the area without employing dimensional traveling magic but that's it.

My conclusion is based mostly in linguistic analysis of the spell's description and game balance concerns. The only way to interpret the spell the other way is to focus on the trap angle. It's odd, logically, that a trap would offer protection to its target but it's only one aspect of the spell's normal version turned the other way. That the spell's other effects would continue to radiate from is center point even makes a certain amount of sense from a verisimilitude standpoint.

I just really don't see a strong case for that interpretation.

Same could be said for your argument.

Option #1: All creatures within the area gain the effects of a protection from evil spell, and no nongood summoned creatures can enter the area either. You must overcome a creature’s spell resistance in order to keep it at bay (as in the third function of protection from evil), but the deflection and resistance bonuses and the protection from mental control apply regardless of enemies’ spell resistance.

Option #2: This spell has an alternative version that you may choose when casting it. A magic circle against evil can be focused inward rather than outward. When focused inward, the spell binds a nongood called creature (such as those called by the lesser planar binding, planar binding, and greater planar binding spells) for a maximum of 24 hours per caster level, provided that you cast the spell that calls the creature within 1 round of casting the magic circle. The creature cannot cross the circle’s boundaries. If a creature too large to fit into the spell’s area is the subject of the spell, the spell acts as a normal protection from evil spell for that creature only.

No where does it say that the protection stuff from option 1 applies to option 2. So it's either one or the other. You either cast it to get an AoE protection from x, or you cast it inward and create a trap that surpasses force cage but limited to only one guy, and requiresplanar binding chain of spells to even work, so no using it in battle.

You infer a lot of stuff, but look at polymorph any object. How does it replicate stone to flesh and flesh to stone? The spell only polymorphs stuff, and it all can be dispelled, except stone to flesh and flesh to stone can't be dispelled, so if you opt to duplicate those spells with PaO, it's a completley unrelated effect. Same thing with polymorph. PaO changes int, polymorph doesn't, but if you choose to make it replicate polymorph, then you can opt out of the int change, but you gotta state you replicate polymorph. Same thing with baleful polymorph. You can't add the WIS and CHA change baleful polymorph provides into PaO.

Likewise, unless RAW states it, 1 way of using the spell does not transfer over to the 2nd way of using the spell unless specifically stated. Magic circle doesn't specifically state using the alternative method of using the spell also grants protection stuff, so it doesn't.

[Kelb_Panthera]

No where does it say that the protection stuff from option 1 applies to option 2.

Yes it does. You copypasta'd it yourself.


Option #2: This spell has an alternative version that you may choose when casting it. A magic circle against evil can be focused inward rather than outward. When focused inward, the spell binds a nongood called creature (such as those called by the lesser planar binding, planar binding, and greater planar binding spells) for a maximum of 24 hours per caster level, provided that you cast the spell that calls the creature within 1 round of casting the magic circle. The creature cannot cross the circle’s boundaries. If a creature too large to fit into the spell’s area is the subject of the spell, the spell acts as a normal protection from evil spell for that creature only.

What line of logic, other than "it's RAW and RAW doesn't have to make sense" explains the highlighted point?


You infer a lot of stuff, but look at polymorph any object. How does it replicate stone to flesh and flesh to stone? The spell only polymorphs stuff, and it all can be dispelled, except stone to flesh and flesh to stone can't be dispelled, so if you opt to duplicate those spells with PaO, it's a completley unrelated effect. Same thing with polymorph. PaO changes int, polymorph doesn't, but if you choose to make it replicate polymorph, then you can opt out of the int change, but you gotta state you replicate polymorph. Same thing with baleful polymorph. You can't add the WIS and CHA change baleful polymorph provides into PaO.

I do infer things where necessary. Any DM worth half-a-damn does. PAO is a -much- higher level spell, so it's only natural that its range of effects would be much broader and more varied than a 3rd level spell. It's also amongst one of the most poorly conceived and balanced spells in the game.*


Likewise, unless RAW states it, 1 way of using the spell does not transfer over to the 2nd way of using the spell unless specifically stated. Magic circle doesn't specifically state using the alternative method of using the spell also grants protection stuff, so it doesn't.

Except it does, as I highlighted. Is it your contention that any colossal creature called by PB is not trapped and actually buffed when it arrives? Such a clearly undesirable effect is definitely outside of the intent of the spell so clearly something is wrong here and logic needs to be applied to figure out what and how best to fix it.

*Pop quiz. Did I mean that PAO was poorly conceived and poorly balanced or did I mean that it was poorly conceived but well balanced? Sometimes you -have- to read between the lines and infer things when reading things in the english language. To presume that the two aspects of magic circle are completely separate is one possible interpretation of the meaning of the spell description but it's not the only valid one and it stands up poorly to scrutiny linguistically, logically, and from a game design perspective. I can't say you're definitely, absolutely wrong but neither can you say that of my argument.

[Crake]

Honestly, if you're BINDING outsiders, you may as well just do it properly with the way it's described in the planar binding spell. The whole forcing it to serve you thingo through a charisma check or whatnot.

Alternatively, don't try and summon a good outsider for your evil plans? That's just common sense. It only takes a single action for the charm monster to break, and then well, when that eladrin figures out what's happened, you're gonna be in a world of hurt as outsiders start messing with absolutely everything you try to do ever.

Treat bound creatures with care, because only the lamest of DMs will let you get away with it scott free.

[georgie_leech]

Except it does, as I highlighted. Is it your contention that any colossal creature called by PB is not trapped and actually buffed when it arrives? Such a clearly undesirable effect is definitely outside of the intent of the spell so clearly something is wrong here and logic needs to be applied to figure out what and how best to fix it.



To paraphrase from the Dysfunctions thread, when there are multiple interpretations of a rule, and one is dysfunctional but the other isn't, you should probably just use the latter.

[VincentTakeda]

Its not a little ironic that this table of gamers has 'summoned you'...
You have been 'lured'
Inside a circle ('to play within a given framework')
That you'd rather play outside of...
Seemingly to be forced under the yoke of someone who does not share your alignment.
Which is a situation that makes you... hostile...

Kinda poetic when you think about it.

Ok. Lets break it down.

I call this one the 'specialization creates a lack of diversity in function' dilemma...

Or more simply the 'you create your own limitations' dilemma.

If you can only have fun doing what you want to do, and you totally have the right to play what you want to play... The impasse is 'if the only things you want to play are things a lot of gms ban out of hand, it'll be harder for you to find a table.'

I recommend a couple of half step measure first... Try to see if the other players are on board with you. We should give it a shot and see how it goes'... Maybe this thing you want to do is something every other player at the table also wants to do... Might be an eye opener for the gm or a good framework for a future campaign. How would you like it if the gm said 'I won't be allowing it in this campaign but if everyone at the table digs the idea, our next game can open up the floodgates for that kind of thing... Would you then be motivated to try his campaign within his current framework?

I'd also definitely recommend observing the campaign for a bit as a non participant. As a gm I find a lot of players are motivated by seeing a campaign they cant contribute to and choose to sit out and watch a game will eventually think up something that would fit better... but I've seen just as many that will just go their separate ways. I've done it myself quite a bit. As a player I've totally experienced what you're experiencing. I'll sit it out and see if the campaign as it moves 'inspires my creativity in another direction'. If I can't find it... thats ok too.

The only important part is no bad blood. Its not a bad thing that gms have things they wont allow. And I agree with you there are a LOT of gms that wont allow things that I think they should. (I'll stay out of whether I think what you're attempting is something I agree should be possible or not... Its subjective and immaterial for this discussion) What makes it ok is your ability to choose not to be a player within that framework. A fun gm with fun players can usually coax his group into operating within a framework just based on the strength of the fun his campaign provides... but if you're *only* interested in the kind of fun you can have with the two types of build you listed... and this gm doesn't want it... you can't super be upset that when you set up such a narrow band of 'what I find fun' means an equally narrow band of gm's that agree with you. Just remember not to take that personally.

The moment of impasse is 'could I still have fun at this table doing something other than what I've been choosing so far'... If the answer is yes, give something else a shot. If the answer is no, step away, but make sure there's no bad blood. Sometimes you have to treat the hobby like a sport. You may not like the guys on the other team, but they're just as much a member of the sport as you are. Even if you don't have respect for the gm, he's got players enjoying his game so at least respect the other gamers, and for gamings sake respect the game.

So four options really...
1. See if your idea might be an option for the *next* game to see if the gm or other players are *ever* going to be amenable to your style of fun.
2. Play someting else
3. Observe the game for a bit and see if the game inspires you to play something else.
4. Walk

I can definitely say that if a gm said 'no, I will never in the future consider running a campaign that lets you play those two things' is a gm I'd be completely happy to not sit at a table with... I entirely believe a good gm should be capable and occasionally willing to step outside his own comfort zone if only to broaden his perspective or to give players a chance to wreak a little havok from time to time. A gm that says no to that? I'd choose option 4 and be pretty happy with my choice.

[eggynack]

Everyone's suggestions is to talk to him and rebuild my character. Alright, I'll go dig up one of my past sorcerer builds I liked and see if he likes any of them.
That would be unwise. While it is apparent that you love sorcerers, your current game is a somewhat hostile work environment for sorcerers. In a game where bans and rules weirdness happens in response to perceived overpoweredness, you don't want to be losing actual build resources every time one of those things happens. Rebuilding is fine, but I would rebuild to a non-sorcerer. Go with something that can adapt to stuff like this and roll with the punches.

Wizard is probably closest to your core goals, and you can mod it out with spontaneity increasing stuff like spontaneous divination, uncanny forethought, and mage of the arcane order if you want. Most tier one classes would be fine though, and while archivists suffer from the spell scribing delay as much as wizards do, a druid or cleric could be perfectly fine with a sudden banning within an in-game day, or even an in-game six seconds if the banning is of a wild shape form or summons. The goal here isn't necessarily power so much as it is adaptiveness, which is an ability the sorcerer lacks from a metagame perspective.

[RoboEmperor]

I can't say you're definitely, absolutely wrong but neither can you say that of my argument.

What I see is, if the bound inward fails, it changes to the protection spell.
And PaO's "badness" is derived from the potential abuse of its normal usage, but the alternate usages of the spell not intersecting with its normal usage still is valid, and not poorly thought out.

I agree with the quoted part. I interpret it one way, you another, and only an official errata or example would change either of our minds :)

Also, I agree that you can charm bound outsiders.

This is the normal way:
1. Find a monster
2. Teleport to it
3. Charm it

This is what she's doing
1. Find a monster
2. Teleport it to you
3. Charm it

As long as sorcererlover isn't saying stuff like "I use the charisma roll to make the outsider intentionally fail the planar binding charisma check to serve me for free", it's fine. Just treat the monster as a charmed creature instead of a bound creature.

[Emperor Tippy]

1) Magic Circle's inherit from Protection From Evil and thus block all Enchantment (Charm) effects as they all exercise ongoing mental control over the target (forcing them to treat the caster as Friendly).

2) Smart binders don't need to bother with things like that.

The first thing you do is call and bind a Cerebrilith (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/monsters/cerebrilith.htm). With only 9 HD it can be bound with regular Planar Binding and had at will Ego Whip as a Psi-Like ability. That power damages Charisma and isn't blocked by Magic Circle spells. So you Bind one and then have it drop the target down to negative Charisma and then wait for it to heal up to 1 Charisma before attempting to compel service (it now gets a -4 Cha mod). You might also want to use Crystalline Memories (Complete Mage) or Mindfrost (Frostburn) to drop its Int score down to 3 so that it is too stupid to see through your lies.

Then you use Fell Drain magic missiles to drop it down to 1 HD.

Now you use Diplomacy to make it Friendly towards you. You might want to use Guidance of the Avatar to get a natural 20 on your roll and/or push up your Diplomacy as far as possible.

Then you attempt to compel service, again using Guidance of the Avatar to ensure a natural 20 on the roll.

Now you use Hypnotism to implant all kinds of compulsions into your new slave to ensure that it will remain bound to you (and not act against you) even if the Planar Binding should somehow lapse.

The you just heal up all of the damage that you have dealt and have your new slave creature with very little risk or chance of failure.

Of course, once you get access to Mind Rape (Book of Vile Darkness) you use that as it can work straight through a Magic Circle or Protection From Evil effect and lets you totally rebuild the creatures mind before you bind them.

---
Now just spend a few weeks binding up your army.

Granted, you DM will probably take issue with you actually using Planar Binding to its potential.

[RoboEmperor]

Nice advice tippy!

My current DM though, he says there's absolutely nothing planar binding does to enforce the "contract" made by you, and the charisma roll stuff is just the negotiations simplified to a dice roll. The only reason a demon wouldn't just lie to you and try to kill you the moment he leaves the circle is to get the reward you promised, to keep up a reputation, etc.

So if you do all those -HD and -charisma stuff, he'll be a really bad negotiator and do whatever you say, but once he gets his stats back up, I think he will try to kill you or similar.

I dunno what he's saying is house rules or whatnot, but just food for thought.

Oh and some people would say even with 1CHA and 1hd, serving you for free is "unreasonable" therefore never agreed to XD.

How do you respond to those stuff tippy? :D

[torrasque666]

And that's why you bind Devils instead. Devils will always hold their word. They may twist it to the most favorable meaning they can, but they always will.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Holy crap on a stick Tippy messed up. :smalleek:

I'm dead certain he meant surge of fortune where he said guidance of the avatar. Not that using both is a bad idea for the diplomacy roll.

[Brookshw]

Holy crap on a stick Tippy messed up. :smalleek:

Oh come on, everyone on this forum has made a mistake somewhere along the lines :smalltongue:

[icefractal]

I pretty much agree on the "sticking them in a circle is hostile" thing. And how exactly does that make Planar Binding unusable? It makes "Planar Binding for free" more difficult, is all. The normal flow of Planar Binding is:
Planar Bind -> Make a deal -> Pay up -> Get service

If you're powerful enough, the deal could be "serve me for free or I destroy you" or "Dominate Monster!". And that's fine. But no, I don't think getting free service out of an outsider powerful enough you can't threaten it like that needs to be easy.

If you want to charm them, it's still possible, just a little harder. For example:
1) Convincingly disguise yourself as someone they'd willingly serve (and hide your damn alignment).
2) Make a deal with it, like normal, agreeing to pay it a reasonable amount. Leave the term of service open-ended, but either of you can declare it finished, so (seemingly) a better deal than normal.
3) Once it's out of the circle and working with you, then Charm Monster.
4) Now that it's your charmed friend, you can start changing the terms of the deal. Like, you need that money to help innocent people, so would it mind being paid some time later? And your quest is so important to the world, surely it can keep serving you longer than it was originally planning? And sometimes you need to do things that appear evil, for the greater good. And so forth.
5) This still won't give you direct control, and you will have to pretend to be good aligned. But hey, you're a Sorcerer, your Bluff skill should be huge.

Alternate strategy:
1) Conceal yourself really well while casting Planar Binding. Have a minion there pretending to be the caster.
2) Your minion gloats about how he's captured a celestial. Meanwhile, you silently cast Charm Monster.
3) Once the charm succeeds, you burst out from the shadows, punch your minion out, and dismiss the circle. You've rescued it!
4) Bluff comes into play again. Would it help you on your important quest for righteousness?
5) Same as the previous plan. You've got to pretend to be a good guy, but with the Charm going you've got the benefit of the doubt.

Alternate alternate strategy:
1) You're Lawful Evil. Go find a non-allied village, kill everybody, trap their souls.
2) Bind a devil instead, give it the souls in exchange for service.
3) None of this subterfuge needed. If it tries to betray you, vaporize it.

Alternate ^ 3 strategy:
1) Planar Binding. Stab it once, then let it go.
2) Use the blood to make a Simulacrum.
3) Now you do have direct control, permanently, and you don't have to worry about anyone attacking you to rescue it.

[Emperor Tippy]

Holy crap on a stick Tippy messed up. :smalleek:

I'm dead certain he meant surge of fortune where he said guidance of the avatar. Not that using both is a bad idea for the diplomacy roll.

You would be correct, I meant the Complete Champion cleric 5 spell that lets you auto get a natural 20 on any d20 roll. I often mix up the names for Surge of Fortune and Guidance of the Avatar.

[Emperor Tippy]

Nice advice tippy!

My current DM though, he says there's absolutely nothing planar binding does to enforce the "contract" made by you, and the charisma roll stuff is just the negotiations simplified to a dice roll. The only reason a demon wouldn't just lie to you and try to kill you the moment he leaves the circle is to get the reward you promised, to keep up a reputation, etc.

So if you do all those -HD and -charisma stuff, he'll be a really bad negotiator and do whatever you say, but once he gets his stats back up, I think he will try to kill you or similar.

I dunno what he's saying is house rules or whatnot, but just food for thought.

Oh and some people would say even with 1CHA and 1hd, serving you for free is "unreasonable" therefore never agreed to XD.

How do you respond to those stuff tippy? :D
By shrugging and telling the DM to stop making up houserules in the middle of a campaign?

[Fitz10019]

If I knew it wasn't allowed I wouldn't have joined his group.

I realize you're angry, and maybe you're oversimplifying, but this statement is a red flag.

You should join a group to participate in the group, not to play a specific build. This statement sounds like you need a video game, not a group.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Nice advice tippy!

My current DM though, he says there's absolutely nothing planar binding does to enforce the "contract" made by you, and the charisma roll stuff is just the negotiations simplified to a dice roll. The only reason a demon wouldn't just lie to you and try to kill you the moment he leaves the circle is to get the reward you promised, to keep up a reputation, etc.

So if you do all those -HD and -charisma stuff, he'll be a really bad negotiator and do whatever you say, but once he gets his stats back up, I think he will try to kill you or similar.

I dunno what he's saying is house rules or whatnot, but just food for thought.

Oh and some people would say even with 1CHA and 1hd, serving you for free is "unreasonable" therefore never agreed to XD.

How do you respond to those stuff?

I actually agree with your DM for the most part on this one. Under normal circumstances the charisma check would represent you negotiating a deal that the magic of the spell forces them to comply with. However, what possible reason could compel the creature, no matter how dumb and weak willed you make them, to believe that any deal you have to offer after such torturous assault would be reasonable? Even the Pact Primeval has a clause forbidding such coercion and it was penned by the gods and beings of pure law themselves.

Even if you -could- make a deal that would be even vaguely agreeable to the poor half-wit creature (and as a DM I would certainly -never- agree to any deal made under such circumstances on the outsider's behalf) there's an argument to be made that the magic would fail to make them comply -well- because of their extremely limited ability to understand the deal they made when their mind was shredded. You would necessarily have had to make a very simple deal since you were dealing with something barely smarter than a monkey with a very poor sense of self, the return of his mental prowess would allow him to circumvent, to a much greater than normal extent, the intent of his given task and possibly even turn on you in a -terrifically- bad way.

Then, if you somehow got past all of that, the creature would have -every- reason to come back at you with every ounce of force it could muster on its behalf, just for the humiliation if nothing else.

[aleucard]

My suggestions boil down to two questions.

Is your preferred optimization level higher than the DM is willing or able to accommodate? If yes, then either lower your actual optimization level, negotiate, or walk. It's supposed to be fun, nobody sensible will begrudge you for not wanting to do something unfun that is not part of your job.

Is the DM specifically targeting you in a negative fashion? Before assuming, try to make something that is not a T2/T1 character and see if that gets nerfed too. If he is, feel free to call him out mid-session for that and get that solved by whatever means works best, whether that mean walking, convincing the DM to quit being a douchebag, kicking him out of your house if that's the venue, or whatever else is appropriate. Try not to do anything that'll get you arrested, though, that's usually not as fun as it sounds.

[nedz]

I realize you're angry, and maybe you're oversimplifying, but this statement is a red flag.

You should join a group to participate in the group, not to play a specific build. This statement sounds like you need a video game, not a group.

Hmm, well since I DM more than I play: I usually have a character concept I want to explore when I do get the chance — though I usually have several such concepts to choose from.

Also, it is useful for DMs to publish house-rules up front so that players know where they stand; which would probably have helped here.

So, ..., as is often the case, more communication would have been useful.

[Deadline]

Everyone's suggestions is to talk to him and rebuild my character.

That's because the bolded part above is how reasoned adults hash out their differences and actually accomplish things. Generally, taking time to calm down and then come back to approach the issue with a cool head will lead to the best results. Otherwise it's just a race to see who can be the biggest a-hole, and there's no winner if that happens.

These things:

Maybe I should go back to pathfinder, at least then I can shove erratas in everyone's faces >:\.

I'm gonna probably walk. The party was doing well with a suboptimal blaster, they'll do fine without me, and the DM jacked me. I'll just tell him if he doesn't unban PHB2 or residual magic (not both), it's your fault I'm walking because I joined this game specifically to do that.

Aren't productive in any way. Hopefully you can vent here and cool off before talking to your DM to find out what's up, and how the two of you can find something you'd like to play.

[Brookshw]

Hmm, well since I DM more than I play: I usually have a character concept I want to explore when I do get the chance — though I usually have several such concepts to choose from.

Also, it is useful for DMs to publish house-rules up front so that players know where they stand; which would probably have helped here.

So, ..., as is often the case, more communication would have been useful.

I often wonder if people who spend more time behind the screen have a greater tolerance for playing in restrictive environments, partially due to being glad to be a player, and partially knowing how it is, so to speak. I know that I'm definitely happy to deal with almost any build restriction, and likely mostly because I spend an overwhelming amount of time as the dm (which is fine by me in terms of 95%+ time spent dming).

[RoboEmperor]

Sith_Happens quoted the DMG in my other thread about charm monster


Charming another creature gives the charming character the ability to befriend and suggest courses of actions to his minion, but the servitude is not absolute or mindless. Charms of this type include the various charm spells. Essentially, a charmed character retains free will but makes choices according to a skewed view of the world.


A charmed creature doesn’t gain any magical ability to understand his new friend’s language.
A charmed character retains his original alignment and allegiances, generally with the exception that he now regards the charming creature as a dear friend and will give great weight to his suggestions and directions.
A charmed character fights his former allies only if they threaten his new friend, and even then he uses the least lethal means at his disposal as long as these tactics show any possibility of success (just as he would in a fight between two actual friends).
A charmed character is entitled to an opposed Charisma check against his master in order to resist instructions or commands that would make him do something he wouldn’t normally do even for a close friend. If he succeeds, he decides not to go along with that order but remains charmed.
A charmed character never obeys a command that is obviously suicidal or grievously harmful to her.
If the charming creature commands his minion to do something that the influenced character would be violently opposed to, the subject may attempt a new saving throw to break free of the influence altogether.
A charmed character who is openly attacked by the creature who charmed him or by that creature’s apparent allies is automatically freed of the spell or effect


Any additional discussion about charm monster, please post in my thread instead of here as it is off topic :D. But according to this quote, you can make a charmed creature do something it wouldn't do even for a close friend with a successful check. So you can charm outsiders and make them do whatever you want (that's not suicidal or the like).

So what sorcererlover tried to do, to make the ghaele to fight bandits for her, is completely within the power of charm monster, except, it doesn't work on ghaeles because of the persistent protection aura, so pick another outsider and you can do that!

[With a box]

I wonder something irrelevant.
Is this sorcerer is same one that who dumped CON?