Which is better? Planar Ally or Planar Binding?

[Zhentarim]

I'm tryimg to pick between a wizard and a cleric.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Most people are going to say binding because it's "free." It's not free but the costs are intangible; the called creature doesn't want to be there and, depending on what it is and whether the DM wants to throw the extra curve-ball, it may try to undermine your intentions in executing your orders -and- may seek vengeance if you mistreat it at all (again, DM call).

Planar ally has a baseline cost but the creature may (again, DM discretion) waive the cost if the assigned task fits its own goals and desires or may opt for a favor rather than cash.

Between the two; ally is safer, binding is -probably- cheaper.

That said, have you considered wu-jen or shaman for spirit binding/ally? There are some quite interesting creatures that fall under the header of "spirit."

[eggynack]

Binding. Ally doesn't give you really limited control over which creature you get, which means that, as strong as the ally list is, you're always subject to the arbitrary whims of your deity/DM. Binding, seemingly, grants full determination of the called creature to the caster, which means you can always operate at or near the top of the planar binding list. It means that a wizard can say, "I can call up a nightmare to make use of its astral projection ability," while clerics can only say, "I might be able to call a nightmare, if I get lucky." Also note, wizards have access to sanctified spells, which means access to animate with the spirit, which is kinda like a good only version of lesser planar ally. To my knowledge, the cleric doesn't get that same kind of native access to an effect that roughly duplicates binding. We're obviously not in full on ally copying territory here, but it's nice. This is all on top of the aforementioned free/safe comparison.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Animate with the spirit is -nothing- like planar ally. It's more like mutant, good version of summon undead and animate dead merged into one -odd- spell.

The only comparison between AwtS and PA is in the lack of absolute determination of the outsider-spirit summoned (note; summoned not called). It's a really weird spell.

[Nifft]

Planar Binding allows more player control, no explicit cost, and fewer limitations. It's far more prone to interpretation and abuse. Therefore, it's better.

Planar Ally has an explicit cost, and less player control.

However, note that you could be a Malconvoker, and thus why_not_both.gif

[eggynack]

Animate with the spirit is -nothing- like planar ally. It's more like mutant, good version of summon undead and animate dead merged into one -odd- spell.

The only comparison between AwtS and PA is in the lack of absolute determination of the outsider-spirit summoned (note; summoned not called). It's a really weird spell.
I mean, the bulk of planar ally's utility is in outsider calling, and the bulk of the utility of outsider calling is in the fancy spell abilities. Animate gets those things, just limited to good outsiders. Movanic devas are still very much a thing. Nightmares aren't, and neither are a bunch of ally's stuff, but there's a lot more than undead on offer. Also, you can weirdly use chain spell, or a rod thereof, on animate. Which is cool. I think animate is more similar than you give it credit for.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I mean, the bulk of planar ally's utility is in outsider calling, and the bulk of the utility of outsider calling is in the fancy spell abilities. Animate gets those things, just limited to good outsiders. Movanic devas are still very much a thing. Nightmares aren't, and neither are a bunch of ally's stuff, but there's a lot more than undead on offer. Also, you can weirdly use chain spell, or a rod thereof, on animate. Which is cool. I think animate is more similar than you give it credit for.

That's a very charitable interpretation of the spell. It says nothing about the outsider spirit being able to use any of its innate spellcasting, spell-like, or supernatural abilities. If it has class levels then it gets to use those but that doesn't apply to most outsiders.

I suspect you're making the logical leap to using the possession rules from FC1 (since they're updated from BoVD) even though the spell doesn't make a call-back to the possession rules from BoVD. I'd probably do the same in actual play but that's not necessarily the RAW of it.

[eggynack]

That's a very charitable interpretation of the spell. It says nothing about the outsider spirit being able to use any of its innate spellcasting, spell-like, or supernatural abilities. If it has class levels then it gets to use those but that doesn't apply to most outsiders.

I suspect you're making the logical leap to using the possession rules from FC1 (since they're updated from BoVD) even though the spell doesn't make a call-back to the possession rules from BoVD. I'd probably do the same in actual play but that's not necessarily the RAW of it.
I'm mostly going off of the term "Mental abilities", which is explicitly separate from mental ability scores. Also, the spell explicitly words itself as denying these things from the host body, and doesn't for the spirit, which isn't a thing from which you can draw a strict rule conclusion, but it does indicate the way you're supposed to read mental abilities.

[Aetis]

Which is better? Planar Ally or Planar Binding?

This might be bit off topic, but have you considered Spirit Binding? (Wu Jen)

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'm mostly going off of the term "Mental abilities", which is explicitly separate from mental ability scores. Also, the spell explicitly words itself as denying these things from the host body, and doesn't for the spirit, which isn't a thing from which you can draw a strict rule conclusion, but it does indicate the way you're supposed to read mental abilities.

"Mental abilities" is almost always used in the sense of int, wis, and cha and the publisher's penchant for editing mistakes along with the fact this would be a unique use of the phrase throughout the rule-set leads me much closer to the conclusion it's a simple editing error (missed the redundance) than an intentional call to spellcasting and/or spell-like abilities.

[eggynack]

"Mental abilities" is almost always used in the sense of int, wis, and cha and the publisher's penchant for editing mistakes along with the fact this would be a unique use of the phrase throughout the rule-set leads me much closer to the conclusion it's a simple editing error (missed the redundance) than an intentional call to spellcasting and/or spell-like abilities.
I don't think that's how it was meant, really. You can actually see a pretty similar usage of the term way far afield on the thoon elder brain. I've seen the argument there that it's specific to the creature's psionic abilities, which is plausible, but it's definitely meant broader than these ability scores. Consider also the contrast with the innate abilities associated with the base creature. Moreover, that the outsider gets access to its class levels implies a broader range of capabilities than this simply being an outsider brain in a zombie bod. My feeling is that mental abilities clearly grant something ability-wise, something distinct from these ability scores. Whether mental abilities include SLA's is arguably a bit more ambiguous, but I think it's a logical read.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I don't think that's how it was meant, really. You can actually see a pretty similar usage of the term way far afield on the thoon elder brain. I've seen the argument there that it's specific to the creature's psionic abilities, which is plausible, but it's definitely meant broader than these ability scores. Consider also the contrast with the innate abilities associated with the base creature. Moreover, that the outsider gets access to its class levels implies a broader range of capabilities than this simply being an outsider brain in a zombie bod. My feeling is that mental abilities clearly grant something ability-wise, something distinct from these ability scores. Whether mental abilities include SLA's is arguably a bit more ambiguous, but I think it's a logical read.

There's arguments to be made either way. It's text-book ambiguity (thanks, WotC! :smallmad:). I don't think it's inappropriate to tell the OP to ask his GM before trying to just use the spell.

In any case, being a summoning rather than a calling spell certainly makes it -much- less potent than the spells the OP asked about and you still need a decent body to cast it on. The lower cost is about all it's really got going for it.

[eggynack]

In any case, being a summoning rather than a calling spell certainly makes it -much- less potent than the spells the OP asked about and you still need a decent body to cast it on. The lower cost is about all it's really got going for it.
Does it that? It seems to mostly just make the effects disappear after the creatures leave, and deny you the few SLAs that have an XP cost. I think the only major thing I think you miss out on is commune. Could be missing something, but summoning seems pretty close to calling in this instance.

Edit: One thing that I think really bolsters my position here is the line the rules for SLAs, "A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus or have an XP cost. The user activates it mentally." With standard spells, there's more of an argument for it being a partially physical process, but here we're working with an ability that is not just mental, but up to the possibly higher standard of purely mental. If mental abilities are to indicate anything besides the ability scores, and the text strongly implies that they do, then it seems clear that one of the things it's indicating is SLAs.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Does it that? It seems to mostly just make the effects disappear after the creatures leave, and deny you the few SLAs that have an XP cost. I think the only major thing I think you miss out on is commune. Could be missing something, but summoning seems pretty close to calling in this instance.

Magic circle, AMF, and a few other wards block out summons altogether; not an issue for called creatures. Likewise, summons are still active until they expire and can be dispelled; called creatures require banishment or dismissal. Speaking of, 10 minutes/level is rather a noticably shorter duration than the effectiive days/level of planar ally.


Edit: One thing that I think really bolsters my position here is the line the rules for SLAs, "A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus or have an XP cost. The user activates it mentally." With standard spells, there's more of an argument for it being a partially physical process, but here we're working with an ability that is not just mental, but up to the possibly higher standard of purely mental. If mental abilities are to indicate anything besides the ability scores, and the text strongly implies that they do, then it seems clear that one of the things it's indicating is SLAs.

I'm not saying you're definitely wrong but that's one hell of an "if" in that last sentence.

[eggynack]

Magic circle, AMF, and a few other wards block out summons altogether; not an issue for called creatures. Likewise, summons are still active until they expire and can be dispelled; called creatures require banishment or dismissal. Speaking of, 10 minutes/level is rather a noticably shorter duration than the effectiive days/level of planar ally.
Yeah, it's a notable weakness. I don't think it's massive though. A lot of the utility is coming from out of combat stuff, raise dead, divination, plane shift, and then you get the more fragile combat application. These are different effects, certainly, but I think the space it's working in is a lot more similar to lesser planar ally than you give it credit for. That it also gets to work in that stupid chain spell space is amusing to me.



I'm not saying you're definitely wrong but that's one hell of an "if" in that last sentence.
I don't think it makes too much sense to just chalk the explicit mention of these ability scores up to an editing error. Especially because your claim that "mental abilities" tends to refer to these scores doesn't seem well supported at all. I just checked through the PHB, MM, and DMG for references to this term, because that's where you'd expect to find precedence for this kinda thing, and it looks like my reading is a lot better supported. The PHB refers to mental abilities three times, twice referring to the scores, but explicitly following up each mention of mental ability with the word scores. The phrase physical ability does stand alone at least once in that section, but the fact that we're dealing with the scores is well established by context by that point. The third usage is on magic jar. which actually seems to be the basis for animate's text, again explicitly calling out the scores before talking about mental abilities. The monster manual uses the phrase twice, first when asking whether a given monster relies on physical or mental abilities, which appears to be a largely non-rules reference but which would support my position if we tried to cite it in a rules context, and, again, an explicit reference to the mental ability scores being int, wis, and cha, with the word scores included. Notably, and this may be an issue present in the other books, the phrase "physical abilities" has an explicit mention in the stat context, with mental scores having a "remaining abilities", but that section already establishes the context of scores. I'd expect this context to remain consistent across books. And, finally, the DMG uses the phrase twice, first referring to the stats explicitly as mental ability scores, and second referring to psionics as mental abilities.

So, in conclusion, I think the game has a well established history of using the phrase "mental abilities" in the way I'm indicating, and the game actually uses the separate phrase "mental ability scores" to refer to the statistics. That magic jar is formatted the exact same way would make the possibility of an editing error less likely, because it would imply the same mistake twice across two separate books. Moreover, mental abilities have explicit association with stuff that goes beyond the scores, through the psionics mention. Maybe there are other sources that use it differently, and maybe my search method left off a use or two (like the remaining abilities thing, which I originally missed), but I think I've established a strong enough precedence here to overturn your claim that, "'Mental abilities' is almost always used in the sense of int, wis, and cha." In point of fact, without the context of scores somewhere in the immediate vicinity, I could not find a single time when the phrase was ever used in that way. It doesn't seem like nearly as big of an if given all of that.

[Malroth]

In Pathfinder I've got a Bones Oracle 1 level from getting the Planar Binding line from a prestigue class should I grab planar Ally as a spell known anyway or will Planar Binding+ Magic Circle against Law work well enough?

[ZamielVanWeber]

This might be bit off topic, but have you considered Spirit Binding? (Wu Jen)


That said, have you considered wu-jen or shaman for spirit binding/ally? There are some quite interesting creatures that fall under the header of "spirit."

Having used spirit ally before I want to reiterate this. You can grab some crazy stuff thanks to the definition of spirit in Complete Divine, making it a broad spell with cool options.

[Crake]

I think the real question is: What alignment would you be playing as a cleric? Because anything short of true neutral with a god that has reasonable access to any outsider, planar ally limits yourself to a small spectrum of outsiders, while planar binding does not. Personally I prefer the safer nature of planar ally, the cost is generally insignificant, and unless your DM is an absolute jerk, you will get something that is useful to the situation at hand. The spell does allow for you to request a creature, and more often than not, unless the deity you're requesting aid from doesn't have that, you'll get what you want, or something even better for the situation at hand that you might not have thought of.

Planar binding on the other hand gives you access to the entire spectrum of outsiders, but you're now actually toying with fate. I know at least at my table that playing around with planar binding does not come for free, even if you appease the creature you summon, word will begin to spread, and of course, one wrong move with the wrong outsider and you're going to be in big trouble. Like, character irrevocably screwed trouble.

[eggynack]

The spell does allow for you to request a creature
If you happen to know the name of a particular person that's the type of creature you want, sure. Otherwise, you're kinda up to the arbitrary whims of your deity. And while you might get something good, as you note below this, the difference between good and great can be a pretty broad one. There's a lot of power in precise selection.

[Coidzor]

It may be that, ultimately, the other things you want to do will do more to tip the balance in favor of one option over the other rather than just the difference in methods of Calling Outsiders.

[Crake]

If you happen to know the name of a particular person that's the type of creature you want, sure. Otherwise, you're kinda up to the arbitrary whims of your deity. And while you might get something good, as you note below this, the difference between good and great can be a pretty broad one. There's a lot of power in precise selection.

I wouldn't exactly call the whims of your deity in this circumstance "arbitrary". Unless your deity is one that literally has no care for you in the first place (in which case, how are you getting spells from them) they would be looking for you to succeed. The only time I can imagine a deity not sending the kind of creature you specifically want is when the deity actually has something that can do the job you want done better or does not have such a creature at it's disposal. Now of course, if you're asking your deity for creatures they don't have, then that's probably more your fault than your deity's, but I've never had a DM be a jerk to the point where they just gave me some random creature that was of lesser or no use to the situation at hand than the creature I was asking for.

[eggynack]

I wouldn't exactly call the whims of your deity in this circumstance "arbitrary". Unless your deity is one that literally has no care for you in the first place (in which case, how are you getting spells from them) they would be looking for you to succeed. The only time I can imagine a deity not sending the kind of creature you specifically want is when the deity actually has something that can do the job you want done better or does not have such a creature at it's disposal. Now of course, if you're asking your deity for creatures they don't have, then that's probably more your fault than your deity's, but I've never had a DM be a jerk to the point where they just gave me some random creature that was of lesser or no use to the situation at hand than the creature I was asking for.
I'm not saying the deity would send a crappy creature, but I really doubt you'd get one perfectly tailored to your needs all the time. Is your deity really displaying a lack of care for you as a cleric if they send down a hound archon, which is a maxed out HD creature with reasonable abilities? The deity doesn't even necessarily know what you want exactly, because you don't really have the capacity to ask. How are they to know that you specifically need a plane shift right now? As far as I can tell, the spell is just a generic request for aid with the possibility of a specific creature ask.

[Crake]

I'm not saying the deity would send a crappy creature, but I really doubt you'd get one perfectly tailored to your needs all the time. Is your deity really displaying a lack of care for you as a cleric if they send down a hound archon, which is a maxed out HD creature with reasonable abilities? The deity doesn't even necessarily know what you want exactly, because you don't really have the capacity to ask. How are they to know that you specifically need a plane shift right now? As far as I can tell, the spell is just a generic request for aid with the possibility of a specific creature ask.

All deities have portfolio sense and remote sensing, so they can easily look upon the cleric requesting aid and know exactly what he needs.

[eggynack]

All deities have portfolio sense and remote sensing, so they can easily look upon the cleric requesting aid and know exactly what he needs.
Remote sensing demands that the deity be focusing in on your character, which isn't necessarily going to happen. Especially because you're not likely talking about your specific needs after you start casting. Portfolio sense is, y'know, portfolio specific. And, in either case, we're down to sensory details, not necessarily the exact nature of the cleric's plan in a future oriented direction.

[Crake]

Remote sensing demands that the deity be focusing in on your character, which isn't necessarily going to happen. Especially because you're not likely talking about your specific needs after you start casting. Portfolio sense is, y'know, portfolio specific. And, in either case, we're down to sensory details, not necessarily the exact nature of the cleric's plan in a future oriented direction.

I think a deity's followers would likely be included in their portfolio, and most deities can sense back in time at least a small degree, so they would also get any discussion or determination of plans in that. Lets be fair, if you're able to call on a deity for planar aid, the deity probably keeps at least some tabs on you, especially if it's a greater deity, they have the power to keep many tabs on many people.