Is Planar Binding worth it as a 5th level spell?

[Segev]

The 5e version requires 1000 gp be burned up every time you cast it. Is it really worth 1000 gp/day for a minion you'd be capable of calling to your presence at level 9? The material cost just seems prohibitive until you get to at least the month-long duration. Especially when you start to ask where you're going to get a target for the spell that you can keep still long enough to cast it.

It's interesting that you can use it on any outsider/elemental/fey you can pin down for 10 minutes, but pinning them down is tricky in its own right if you didn't summon them with a conjure spell, specifically into a magic circle (since you'll lose concentration when you start casting planar binding).

What is the best use of this spell, particularly when you first gain access to it? (I'll take advice at later levels, too, but it's the first-gain-access point that I think it's nearly useless at, given its cost, and hope to be proven wrong about.)

[Gastronomie]

I think you mean 1 hour, not 10 minutes. Which actually makes stuff worse.

As for uses as a level 5 spell... I honestly... do not know. If you're asked to take care of a really strong outsider monster, the best solution is not Planar Binding, but the level 4 spell Banishment.

If there's a friendly outsider, you can just ask him to do a task. (You could actually just give the 1000 GP to him as normal payment, if he's intelligent enough and understands the concept and value of currency.)

If there's an indifferent outsider, well, of course it depends on the DM, but TBH, I think most of them will turn hostile against you the moment they realize they're now enslaved by magical means.

If there's an hostile outsider... Good luck keeping him in a magic circle for 1 whole hour.

It should be noted, though, that Clerics, Druids, and Wizards (the casters that can change their spells every they) all have this spell on their list, so at least you don't have to keep it in your list all month.


I think that the main reason to cast this is to abuse it at epic levels with True Polymorph. Turning trees into Nycaloths and Glabrezus, Planar Binding them to your service, rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat. Not that many DMs would allow you to churn those summoned fiends into actual combat. Otherwise... I honestly have almost no idea.

I think it's more of a fluff spell, or perhaps a spell better cast by an enemy boss. The idea of a Couatl or something unwillingly enslaved by an evil enemy sorcerer seems pretty interesting (perhaps the sorcerer threatened to kill, destroy, or otherwise severely damage something the Couatl must protect - "keep yourself in that circle, otherwise I will destroy this ancient World Heritage temple!" or something). The caster has put a lot of restrictions on the Couatl's movements, and the adventurers must seek out clues via the ancient texts and relics the Couatl is connected to, and the scattered hints the Couatls drops, in order to understand how to outwit the sorcerer (perhaps there are holes in the orders that can be put to the adventurers' and Couatl's advantage). Since the spell states that the enslaved creature will try to "twist the words", this will be more than a fight, but rather something of a complex puzzle.

[Segev]

Yeah, but if that was the goal, it should have the (ritual) tag and probably be higher level as a base. The 1000 gp cost combined with a 1 day duration is just...worthless.

It isn't even good for the "BBEG" archetype suggested, because he STILL has to be casting it from a higher level slot for it to be worthwhile.

[MaxWilson]

It can be worth it as a 5th level spell, if you have some other use for your concentration, and you don't want the risk of the elemental turning hostile on you. Two examples:

(1) Maybe I want to be able to drop a Stinking Cloud or Cloudkill on top of my earth elemental, since it has Tremorsense (to get advantage on attacks inside heavy obscurement, and disadvantage to its attackers) and is immune to poison. In this case, Planar Binding is buying me this combo. Only worth it if I'm going up against something tough enough that I need this combo.

(2) Maybe I want TWO Fire Elementals for a tough fight, instead of just one. (Then during combat I spam Fireballs while my elementals tank.) Planar Binding buys me the second elemental. Again, only worth it if I need it.

In short, it's probably only worthwhile in difficult, Combat As War campaigns, especially with small parties (1-4 PCs). In a Combat As Sport campaign the DM will make sure the fights never get so tough that you need it.

[Gastronomie]

Yeah, but if that was the goal, it should have the (ritual) tag and probably be higher level as a base. The 1000 gp cost combined with a 1 day duration is just...worthless.

It isn't even good for the "BBEG" archetype suggested, because he STILL has to be casting it from a higher level slot for it to be worthwhile.Oops, forgot about the duration for the BBEG. And we can't let him be a level 9 caster. Damn, what should we do? (Model a magic item after this spell or something?)

I think one of the conclusions could be that this spell is just bad design. But it frankly has to be bad design, because if it was actually worth using, it will be as hell broken as hell and it would be really hellish hell for the game, which is hell.

[Cybren]

Could be useful for siege warfare. And when you have 20th level slots binding the same guy every year isn't that expensive.

[Segev]

It can be worth it as a 5th level spell, if you have some other use for your concentration, and you don't want the risk of the elemental turning hostile on you.

(...)

In short, it's probably only worthwhile in difficult, Combat As War campaigns, especially with small parties (1-4 PCs). In a Combat As Sport campaign the DM will make sure the fights never get so tough that you need it.Are either of those examples really worth 1000 gp for use in one day's combats? Especially since you're going to have to burn at least two more spell slots for the day: one on actually conjuring the critter, and another on the magic circle to contain it.


Oops, forgot about the duration for the BBEG. And we can't let him be a level 9 caster. Damn, what should we do? (Model a magic item after this spell or something?)

I think one of the conclusions could be that this spell is just bad design. But it frankly has to be bad design, because if it was actually worth using, it will be as hell broken as hell and it would be really hellish hell for the game, which is hell.Eh, I think it being a 1 day duration at 5th level is bad design, because it's a trap option. It makes it look like it's a spell you might actually consider learning or preparing in a 5th level spell slot. Once you get to the higher-level, longer-duration spell slots, it actually can be worth its cost.


Could be useful for siege warfare. And when you have 20th level slots binding the same guy every year isn't that expensive.
Yeah, higher-level spell slots actually do make it worthwhile.

I kind-of wonder if it wouldn't be feasible to create a magic item that does nothing except serve as the 1000 gp gem without being consumed. Trouble is, making it Rare would mean you could just have it cast the whole spell, but making it Uncommon seems...a bit low priced.

[Cybren]

Are either of those examples really worth 1000 gp for use in one day's combats? Especially since you're going to have to burn at least two more spell slots for the day: one on actually conjuring the critter, and another on the magic circle to contain it.

In combat-as-war 'worth it' is anything that allows you to live. It depends on too many circumstances to determine if it's worth it, but it's important to note that in CaW those conditions are possible.

Eh, I think it being a 1 day duration at 5th level is bad design, because it's a trap option. It makes it look like it's a spell you might actually consider learning or preparing in a 5th level spell slot. Once you get to the higher-level, longer-duration spell slots, it actually can be worth its cost.

I don't like calling it bad design, because I don't think RPGs with a flat power curve are good design. I think it's nice that there are things that are good in different circumstances, especially if they're rare.

[Segev]

Perhaps I am not understanding "combat as war," then, because I still am not seeing how 1000 gp at level 9 is worth one day's service from something that will seek revenge on you if you give it a chance, which cost you at least two other spell slots AND your sole 5th level spell slot to acquire and hold in place long enough to bind.

Given 5e's stinginess with loot, as well, 1000 gp means that you pretty much lost money that day. You didn't even manage to recoup the cost of the material component out of the full day's encounters, unless you're taking more than your fair share. (Or maybe I'm not calculating the loot/adventuring day of a level 9 PC correctly?)

[MaxWilson]

Perhaps I am not understanding "combat as war," then, because I still am not seeing how 1000 gp at level 9 is worth one day's service from something that will seek revenge on you if you give it a chance, which cost you at least two other spell slots AND your sole 5th level spell slot to acquire and hold in place long enough to bind.

Given 5e's stinginess with loot, as well, 1000 gp means that you pretty much lost money that day. You didn't even manage to recoup the cost of the material component out of the full day's encounters, unless you're taking more than your fair share. (Or maybe I'm not calculating the loot/adventuring day of a level 9 PC correctly?)

I'll confess to a brain blip: I had forgotten you had specified 9th level. I was thinking of 10th level, when a wizard has three 5th level slots per day (one Conjure Elemental, one Planar Binding, one more Conjure Elemental after a short rest for Arcane Recovery). At 9th level, Planar Binding can't give you two elementals at a time unless your table is using spell points (which I do actually) instead of spell slots.

But--5E isn't stingy with loot. On the contrary, it gives you loot coming out of your ears. Let's say you're a lone wizard, maybe an Evoker 9, and you want to take on a mated pair of CR 11 Behirs so you can take their treasure. A quick treasure hoard generated via http://1-dot-encounter-planner.appspot.com/treasure-generator.html says you can expect...


8000 gp
900 pp
Silver and gold brooch (750 gp)
Silver chalice set with moonstones (750 gp)
Silver-plated steel longsword with jet set in hilt (750 gp)
Gold dragon comb set with red garnets as eyes (750 gp)
Small gold idol (750 gp)
Silver-plated steel longsword with jet set in hilt (750 gp)
Spell scroll (Antimagic Field) (MAGIC ITEM TABLE E)

Would I spend 1100 gp to improve my odds of living to claim this treasure hoard? Oh, yes! As a solo wizard fighting a 12x Deadly threat (Deadly = 2400 adjusted XP, two Behirs = 28,800 adjusted XP) you can bet I want multiple elementals on my side (either two Earth Elementals or one Earth and one Air), and I'll be spamming Blindness/Fireball/Magic Missile/Fire Bolt the whole time too to try to give them any edge possible.

But that scenario would never happen at a Combat As Sport table.

[RickAllison]

Also, the spell becomes much more powerful if one does have extensive resources because it can be repeated. After all, one doesn't need a Magic Circle when you can order it to stand perfectly still!

[Segev]

I'm still not clear on what "combat as war" means, I think. The mental image those words conjure for me doesn't seem any different than the one for "combat as sport," particularly in light of the behir example being something that "never happens" in the latter.

Though as well, that is a CR 11 encounter solo'd by a PC 2 levels below it. I should take some time later this week to try to figure out what the gp/encounter of an actual CR 9 is, divided by 4, as that seems more what the game intended.

(And if "playing at appropriate CR" is all that "combat as sport" means, I don't get the terminology.)


Also, the spell becomes much more powerful if one does have extensive resources because it can be repeated. After all, one doesn't need a Magic Circle when you can order it to stand perfectly still!

Oh, sure, you can repeat-bind. The magic circle is really only a small part of the cost, though; it's the 1000 gp/casting that seems prohibitive to me.

[Cybren]

Combat as Sport: the DMs job is to make sure every fight is fair
Combat as War: the players job is to make sure no fight is fair

[Doug Lampert]

Perhaps I am not understanding "combat as war," then, because I still am not seeing how 1000 gp at level 9 is worth one day's service from something that will seek revenge on you if you give it a chance, which cost you at least two other spell slots AND your sole 5th level spell slot to acquire and hold in place long enough to bind.

Given 5e's stinginess with loot, as well, 1000 gp means that you pretty much lost money that day. You didn't even manage to recoup the cost of the material component out of the full day's encounters, unless you're taking more than your fair share. (Or maybe I'm not calculating the loot/adventuring day of a level 9 PC correctly?)

Combat as war it is perfectly possible that you'll have ONE combat encounter in a month of adventuring and loot collecting, since avoiding combat via other means of resolving problems is allowed and expected.

And then that one combat that you absolutely can't avoid is something that will KILL YOU ALL DEAD unless you take every possible advantage and spend every possible resource to beat it.

That beating the encounter cost more than you get from it in loot is IRRELEVANT, because dead people are even worse off.

[RickAllison]

I'm still not clear on what "combat as war" means, I think. The mental image those words conjure for me doesn't seem any different than the one for "combat as sport," particularly in light of the behir example being something that "never happens" in the latter.

Though as well, that is a CR 11 encounter solo'd by a PC 2 levels below it. I should take some time later this week to try to figure out what the gp/encounter of an actual CR 9 is, divided by 4, as that seems more what the game intended.

(And if "playing at appropriate CR" is all that "combat as sport" means, I don't get the terminology.)



Oh, sure, you can repeat-bind. The magic circle is really only a small part of the cost, though; it's the 1000 gp/casting that seems prohibitive to me.

The big difference between CaW and CaS is how you interact with combat beforehand. Combat as Sport is going into each battle kind of like Final Fantasy Tactics, where the majority of the tactical decisions are being made in the middle of everything. It assumes a fairly level playing field.

CaW, by contrast, begins long before initiative is rolled. Reconnaissance, counter-reconnaissance, henchmen, the works.

A good rule of thumb for distinguishing the two is when planning takes place. Do you do it when combat starts (CaS), or are you then just making final adjustments to a plan made ahead of time (CaW)?

[MaxWilson]

Combat as Sport: the DMs job is to make sure every fight is fair
Combat as War: the players job is to make sure no fight is fair

Yep. Just like how, in real life, nobody has the goal of "having a fair fight." In real life, we don't start wars for fun, and when wars do happen, we try our level best to cheat as much as is humanly possible.

But we do have sports matches for fun, and we try to make those balanced so the other guys are willing to come back and play again. In some ways, Combat As Sport is a poor description of 5E because 5E doesn't actually try to make the fights evenly-balanced (otherwise the PCs would lose 50% of the time)--but it certainly is conflict-seeking instead of conflict-avoidant! Just like a sports league.

To further understand usage, I recommend reading posts #1, #5, and #9 in the thread which originated the term: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?317715-Very-Long-Combat-as-Sport-vs-Combat-as-War-a-Key-Difference-in-D-amp-D-Play-Styles


I'm firmly on the "Combat as Sport" (CAS) side, with a penchant for flashy heroics. So yes, I like 4E (and the Feng Shui RPG). But now that I think about it, I've met a few "Combat as War" (CAW) players too. It definitely does explain a certain group of players who never warmed up to 4E.

I'm not quite sure how to appeal to both sides in one game. Both are deeply gamist, but they don't agree on what the game is. For CAS, the game starts when you roll initiative. Each combat is self-contained, similar to a sports league. They get irritated if they have to bother with boring stuff like counting arrows. They get irritated if the Wizard scys the next enemy group and has the right spell prepared to end the combat in his first action.
For CAW, an entire module is a game. They get irritated if they don't get the chance to prepare fights. They hate if the resource management is handwaved. They consider it a good fight if they walk over the enemies in one big swoop.

Emphasis added.


It occurs to me that this explains Ravenloft, and not just in the "do you like Horror" sense.

Ravenloft, as written, was clearly intended to be CaW. You're supposed to uncover the rampaging flesh golem, be helpless against it, fall back and research its weaknesses by clever observation, then walk in and stomp it.

You can't really do that in a 3E/4E "Appropriate Encounter Level" mindset.

Emphasis added, again.

Planar Binding is definitely a Combat As War spell. If you're a DM trying to run a Combat As Sport game, I recommend eliminating the spell from your game.

[Segev]

The big difference between CaW and CaS is how you interact with combat beforehand. Combat as Sport is going into each battle kind of like Final Fantasy Tactics, where the majority of the tactical decisions are being made in the middle of everything. It assumes a fairly level playing field.

CaW, by contrast, begins long before initiative is rolled. Reconnaissance, counter-reconnaissance, henchmen, the works.

A good rule of thumb for distinguishing the two is when planning takes place. Do you do it when combat starts (CaS), or are you then just making final adjustments to a plan made ahead of time (CaW)?

Ah. "Combat as war" is how I generally see games played, regardless of what the DM "wants." (In fact, a lot of the DMs I've seen complain about 'cheese' seem to be expecting "as sport" and getting players treating it "as war.")

In my experience, games work best when they're a combination of the two. The "as sport" encounters, though, tend to be of the sort that the PCs don't get to choose. Ambushes, random encounters, and times when the unfairness is on the other side because they had the better information.

Going with the Ravenloft example, the flesh golem is quite possibly appropriate for your level; you just need to be loaded out for it properly. This is also why 3.5 had dragons "tougher" than their CR supposedly indicated: they were assumed to be known monsters for which the party would prepare.


Combat as war it is perfectly possible that you'll have ONE combat encounter in a month of adventuring and loot collecting, since avoiding combat via other means of resolving problems is allowed and expected.

And then that one combat that you absolutely can't avoid is something that will KILL YOU ALL DEAD unless you take every possible advantage and spend every possible resource to beat it.

That beating the encounter cost more than you get from it in loot is IRRELEVANT, because dead people are even worse off.
The problem I have with this mindset is that too often game designers and DMs who run with it create a death-spiral of ever-increasing losses. It costs more than you make from every fight to survive it, and then the DM wonders why the party is so "weak" and why they keep "squandering" resources "frivolously." Because every fight, they come out poorer than they entered, and they can't ever catch back up.

That said, it sounds like the goal in a well-designed "as war" campaign is for the PCs to come out ahead by hook and crook in other encounters, taking on the "hard" ones that are losses for gains that are something less material. Like removing an intractable enemy.



I dunno. It still just seems way too expensive at a one day duration spell. But thanks for the help analyzing it. At least I can be confident I'm not missing something!

[RickAllison]

Ah. "Combat as war" is how I generally see games played, regardless of what the DM "wants." (In fact, a lot of the DMs I've seen complain about 'cheese' seem to be expecting "as sport" and getting players treating it "as war.")

In my experience, games work best when they're a combination of the two. The "as sport" encounters, though, tend to be of the sort that the PCs don't get to choose. Ambushes, random encounters, and times when the unfairness is on the other side because they had the better information.

Going with the Ravenloft example, the flesh golem is quite possibly appropriate for your level; you just need to be loaded out for it properly. This is also why 3.5 had dragons "tougher" than their CR supposedly indicated: they were assumed to be known monsters for which the party would prepare.


The problem I have with this mindset is that too often game designers and DMs who run with it create a death-spiral of ever-increasing losses. It costs more than you make from every fight to survive it, and then the DM wonders why the party is so "weak" and why they keep "squandering" resources "frivolously." Because every fight, they come out poorer than they entered, and they can't ever catch back up.

That said, it sounds like the goal in a well-designed "as war" campaign is for the PCs to come out ahead by hook and crook in other encounters, taking on the "hard" ones that are losses for gains that are something less material. Like removing an intractable enemy.



I dunno. It still just seems way too expensive at a one day duration spell. But thanks for the help analyzing it. At least I can be confident I'm not missing something!

You are on the money that, at least at lower levels, this is a spell that is cash-to-power. You won't use it often, but it can give a potent boost when you do.

[MaxWilson]

The problem I have with this mindset is that too often game designers and DMs who run with it create a death-spiral of ever-increasing losses. It costs more than you make from every fight to survive it, and then the DM wonders why the party is so "weak" and why they keep "squandering" resources "frivolously." Because every fight, they come out poorer than they entered, and they can't ever catch back up.

Those DMs need to learn to communicate failure better. Instead of making players play out failure, sometimes you just have to say, "Sorry, you lose. Game over." If they want to keep playing past the failure, that's okay. You can start a new campaign about a bunch of guys who failed to prevent a great disaster, or whatever--but you need to be clear to them about the line that has just been drawn.

Nobody likes being forced to grind through the details of a failing endeavor. A good DM will have mercy and just tell the players that it's over.

[Cybren]

In my experience, games work best when they're a combination of the two. The "as sport" encounters, though, tend to be of the sort that the PCs don't get to choose. Ambushes, random encounters, and times when the unfairness is on the other side because they had the better information.

Going with the Ravenloft example, the flesh golem is quite possibly appropriate for your level; you just need to be loaded out for it properly. This is also why 3.5 had dragons "tougher" than their CR supposedly indicated: they were assumed to be known monsters for which the party would prepare.


Well, I think the average party with a CaW mentality would see getting ambushed as a failure in and of itself, even if they survive the encounter. Also, 3.5 dragons were an exemplar of an enemy that could be made trivially easy with someone that knew what they were doing, even if you were under-leveled for their CR.

[MaxWilson]

Well, I think the average party with a CaW mentality would see getting ambushed as a failure in and of itself, even if they survive the encounter. Also, 3.5 dragons were an exemplar of an enemy that could be made trivially easy with someone that knew what they were doing, even if you were under-leveled for their CR.

Maybe so... with the caveat that failure is okay as long as you survive and learn from it.

And sometimes you have to risk failure for the sake of something important. If you are sprinting through the dark to catch the goblins before they can light the powder keg that blows up the princess, you know you're vulnerable to ambush, and you just have to hope that your recklessness won't get you killed today. And you probably spend the whole time grousing to yourself about "Self, you're too old for this stuff" and "Self, why are you risking your life for a stupid princess anyway? Stupid self," but you do it anyway.

In short, Combat As War doesn't necessarily mean that you have to be cautious and paranoid about everything all the time--just that it's kind of a default mode, because you don't expect the universe to play fair.

[ClintACK]

I dunno. It still just seems way too expensive at a one day duration spell. But thanks for the help analyzing it. At least I can be confident I'm not missing something!

Compare to Heroes' Feast. It's a 6th level spell instead of 5th, but it's also a one-day spell and mostly all it does is give the party advantage on Wisdom saves and immunity to Poison.

It's phenomenal if you know you're going to be fighting an Ancient Green Dragon tomorrow. Your whole party are now immune to its breath and have advantage against its frightful presence. A bargain at 1k gp -- and you can cast it *before* a long rest, so it doesn't even really cost a spell slot.

But, to the OP... no, Planar Binding is unlikely to be worth a spot in your limited selection of spells at 9th or 10th level. There are too many phenomenal 5th level spells to spare the room for it.

[RickAllison]

Maybe so... with the caveat that failure is okay as long as you survive and learn from it.

And sometimes you have to risk failure for the sake of something important. If you are sprinting through the dark to catch the goblins before they can light the powder keg that blows up the princess, you know you're vulnerable to ambush, and you just have to hope that your recklessness won't get you killed today. And you probably spend the whole time grousing to yourself about "Self, you're too old for this stuff" and "Self, why are you risking your life for a stupid princess anyway? Stupid self," but you do it anyway.

In short, Combat As War doesn't necessarily mean that you have to be cautious and paranoid about everything all the time--just that it's kind of a default mode, because you don't expect the universe to play fair.

Which highlights another distinction between the two. When you fail in Caw settings, you are generally beating a hasty retreat because something didn't go according to plan and you can't salvage it. In CaS, that belief that the game is fair could mean the party will try to stick it out till the end.

[MaxWilson]

Compare to Heroes' Feast. It's a 6th level spell instead of 5th, but it's also a one-day spell and mostly all it does is give the party advantage on Wisdom saves and immunity to Poison.

It's phenomenal if you know you're going to be fighting an Ancient Green Dragon tomorrow. Your whole party are now immune to its breath and have advantage against its frightful presence. A bargain at 1k gp -- and you can cast it *before* a long rest, so it doesn't even really cost a spell slot.

IMO, the even better use of Heroes' Feast is for when you know you're going to be throwing around lots of Stinking Clouds and Cloudkills yourself, and you don't want friendly fire incidents. Green dragons only happen once in a while, but PC spellcasting happens all the time.


But, to the OP... no, Planar Binding is unlikely to be worth a spot in your limited selection of spells at 9th or 10th level. There are too many phenomenal 5th level spells to spare the room for it.

True, for wizards at least. Clerics and Druids can more easily make use of it because they get access automatically. But wizards and lore bards are squeezed really tight for spells, and Planar Binding would not be among my top four picks at 9th or 10th level.

[Segev]

Hm. ONE thing which planar binding does which might justify to a friendly conjured creature why it should cooperate is that it extends the duration. Doesn't ameliorate the cost, but if you're calling a coatl and want to stay on good terms with it, that's a reasonable justification.

[ClintACK]

Hm. ONE thing which planar binding does which might justify to a friendly conjured creature why it should cooperate is that it extends the duration. Doesn't ameliorate the cost, but if you're calling a coatl and want to stay on good terms with it, that's a reasonable justification.

The problem is that there's no time to get permission. Conjure Celestial has a 1 hour duration (with concentration). Planar Binding has a 1 hour casting time. So you need two casters -- one with 7th level Cleric spells and one with 5th level spells. And the Planar Binding caster has to start casting the second the friendly celestial appears.

In fact, the casting times are wonky all the way around.

If you cast Magic Circle, then Conjure *blank*, then start casting Planar Binding... you will fail. Twelve seconds before Planar Binding is completed, the Magic Circle will expire -- and if the *blank* moves 60' your Planar Binding fails. Six seconds before Planar Binding is completed, Conjure *blank* will expire -- and without the Magic Circle to hold it, the conjured *blank* disappears back to wherever, leaving the 60' range of Planar Binding.

Even with three spell casters abusing the Ready Action to make the start work out right, the Magic Circle and Conjure spells will expire *before* the completion of the Planar Binding spell, won't they?

Is it actually *possible* RAW to use Planar Binding without a Sorcerer using Extend on one of the preliminary spells?

[MaxWilson]

The problem is that there's no time to get permission. Conjure Celestial has a 1 hour duration (with concentration). Planar Binding has a 1 hour casting time. So you need two casters -- one with 7th level Cleric spells and one with 5th level spells. And the Planar Binding caster has to start casting the second the friendly celestial appears.

In fact, the casting times are wonky all the way around.

If you cast Magic Circle, then Conjure *blank*, then start casting Planar Binding... you will fail. Twelve seconds before Planar Binding is completed, the Magic Circle will expire -- and if the *blank* moves 60' your Planar Binding fails. Six seconds before Planar Binding is completed, Conjure *blank* will expire -- and without the Magic Circle to hold it, the conjured *blank* disappears back to wherever, leaving the 60' range of Planar Binding.

Magic Circle can be up-cast to make it last longer. Besides, it would be "six seconds before", not twelve. The spell lasts for an hour, and casting time for the next spell takes an hour--it's a perfect match!

Ditto for Planar Binding vis-a-vis Conjure Elemental. One hour duration, one hour casting time.

[MaxWilson]

Combat as Sport: the DMs job is to make sure every fight is fair
Combat as War: the players job is to make sure no fight is fair

Apropos, saw this today in the news:



Watkins said he can take four F-35s and “be everywhere and nowhere at the same time because we can cover so much ground with our sensors, so much ground and so much airspace. And the F-15s or F-16s, or whoever is simulating an adversary or red air threat, they have no idea where we’re at and they can’t see us and they can’t target us.”

“That’s a pretty awesome feeling when you’re going out to train for combat,” Watkins concluded, "to know that your pilots are in an unfair fight.”

[ClintACK]

Magic Circle can be up-cast to make it last longer.

Oh. Excellent. Missed that. So the spells actually do work as written.



Besides, it would be "six seconds before", not twelve. The spell lasts for an hour, and casting time for the next spell takes an hour--it's a perfect match!

The duration is a perfect match -- but it only works if you can begin casting the next spell *exactly* when the duration of the first one starts counting.

Hmm. I suppose it depends where you start counting. In Round 1, I cast a spell with a duration of 1 minute -- that's ten rounds. Does the spell end at the start of my turn in Round 11 or the end of my turn in Round 11? If it's the latter -- does that mean I get a 1/round effect 11 times with a duration of 1 minute? (Does Call Lightning let you call 100 lightning strikes or 101? Does Eyebite let you make 10 gaze attacks or 11?)


Ditto for Planar Binding vis-a-vis Conjure Elemental. One hour duration, one hour casting time.

That just seems like cutting things incredibly close.

But I suppose I'm trying to impose too much realism on an abstract set of rules... I blame 3.5e.

[MaxWilson]

Hmm. I suppose it depends where you start counting. In Round 1, I cast a spell with a duration of 1 minute -- that's ten rounds. Does the spell end at the start of my turn in Round 11 or the end of my turn in Round 11? If it's the latter -- does that mean I get a 1/round effect 11 times with a duration of 1 minute? (Does Call Lightning let you call 100 lightning strikes or 101? Does Eyebite let you make 10 gaze attacks or 11?)

That is a great question which 5E's PHB completely fails to address or even acknowledge.

Since it doesn't say, I figure I might as well pick the interpretation that makes spells work as they are obviously intended to: a spell with a one-hour duration ends at the end of your 600th turn subsequent to casting the spell. If that means that Eyebite gives you eleven attacks (one on the round you cast it, and one on each of the rounds of its duration) I am 100% okay with that.

[RickAllison]

That is a great question which 5E's PHB completely fails to address or even acknowledge.

Since it doesn't say, I figure I might as well pick the interpretation that makes spells work as they are obviously intended to: a spell with a one-hour duration ends at the end of your 600th turn subsequent to casting the spell. If that means that Eyebite gives you eleven attacks (one on the round you cast it, and one on each of the rounds of its duration) I am 100% okay with that.

That would seem to be consistent with the treatment of many one-round spells. I approve. Doesn't really affect much, but it does save this spell.

[SharkForce]

you're going to need some DM rulings to make planar binding function as described regardless (it can extend the duration of a summoning spell, for example, but by the time planar binding has been cast the summoning spell ended one hour earlier, and there's nothing to extend. the magic circle can prevent the creature from returning itself to its home plane, but when your spell expires it isn't the creature returning itself, it is the universe returning the creature; the creature couldn't just choose to stay, after all).

so, yeah... planar binding works more or less however your DM thinks it should. because the only way it can be used if it only works the way the book version claims is if you cast the planar binding from a wish or similar (a spell gem could also work, and would also allow you to cast planar binding on random appropriate targets you encounter, for example).

[MaxWilson]

you're going to need some DM rulings to make planar binding function as described regardless (it can extend the duration of a summoning spell, for example, but by the time planar binding has been cast the summoning spell ended one hour earlier, and there's nothing to extend. the magic circle can prevent the creature from returning itself to its home plane, but when your spell expires it isn't the creature returning itself, it is the universe returning the creature; the creature couldn't just choose to stay, after all).

Conjure Elemental doesn't send the creature back home when the spell ends. It sticks around (and is hostile) for the full hour. So, no issue there.

And of course, for True Polymorphed Nycaloths and Couatls it's not an issue because you wait until the spell is permanent first. And Gate is instantaneous, no duration anyway, so Gated anythings work as you would expect.

[SharkForce]

Conjure Elemental doesn't send the creature back home when the spell ends. It sticks around (and is hostile) for the full hour. So, no issue there.

And of course, for True Polymorphed Nycaloths and Couatls it's not an issue because you wait until the spell is permanent first. And Gate is instantaneous, no duration anyway, so Gated anythings work as you would expect.

true polymorph and gate are level 9 spells. the "typical" use of a level 5 spell should not involve a level 9 spell.

also, neither of those spells should reasonably be interpreted as having the duration modified by planar binding either.

and conjure elemental has nothing to extend by the time you've done casting it. by the time you finish casting it, conjure elemental has ended. furthermore, extending a period that an explicitly uncontrolled minion is around is not something anyone should be looking for.

[Segev]

That just seems like cutting things incredibly close.

But I suppose I'm trying to impose too much realism on an abstract set of rules... I blame 3.5e.Yeah, the spells' timings were clearly intended to fit "just right." In a rigorous examination, that requires ludicrous precision in casting times, but 5e is not about precision, and is very much about "rulings" (which means they want you to go with RAI when it is clear). RAI is clear here: you're SUPPOSED to be able to bind things with planar binding, and the only ways we have to obtain things to bind with anything resembling player-controlled decision-making is with the conjure line of spells.

So it should work, because it (just barely) can by the RAW, and it's clearly meant to by the RAI.


That is a great question which 5E's PHB completely fails to address or even acknowledge.

Since it doesn't say, I figure I might as well pick the interpretation that makes spells work as they are obviously intended to: a spell with a one-hour duration ends at the end of your 600th turn subsequent to casting the spell. If that means that Eyebite gives you eleven attacks (one on the round you cast it, and one on each of the rounds of its duration) I am 100% okay with that.

Yeah, pretty much. When left with multiple interpretations, err on the side of ones that make the game work.




I'm not sure what the argument that "there's nothing to extend" is drawing upon. Done by rigorous round-based timing, the planar binding would finish casting during the final round that the conjured elemental/celestial/whatever was in the binding circle. It then extends that spell to the duration of the planar binding. The conjure spell isn't over.

As for keeping it contained, you could always get a second caster to put a magic circle up about halfway through the casting if you're worried that the duration on the original magic circle will run out.