Is this pit fiend doomed?

[gogogome]

A player used Greater Planar Binding to bind a Pit Fiend. The Pit Fiend summoned two Horned Devils to defend himself. The two horned devils teleported out of the magic circle and tried to kill the party, but the party killed the horned devils.

This is where the session ended. The players are contemplating whether to spam Necrotic Cyst and Necrotic Tumor using the Reach metamagic feat on the Pit Fiend or use a limited wish Geas on the Pit Fiend first to guarantee successful enslavement.

Is this pit fiend doomed? Is there nothing else I can make the Pit Fiend do to protect himself?

I'm perfectly ok with the party enslaving the pit fiend, but since this is a high-op game I want my pit fiend to exhibit the highest-op behavior he can give. He has his 1/year wish available.

edit: Wish is by the books, RAW ruling, no "greater effect", and the magic items created are non-epic and non-custom.

[Psyren]

The wish has no restrictions so it can use that to escape.

What about its blasphemy, power word stun, or mass hold monster? Are the PCs immune to all of those?

[khadgar567]

interesting situation being slave to ego maniac wizard or becoming test subject to cancer research by said wizard i might try to Faustian bargain one of the party members to shank wizard asap cus this is gonna suck for pit fiend

[noob]

How much silly are wishes allowed to be?
The pit fiend could use his wish to make an infinitely powerful staff with all spells at infinite cl(in his hands of course and with some safeties against it being stolen) and proceed to gate an infinity of pit fiends to attack the players.
That is 100% raw legal and is simply the use of one of the safe clauses of wish.

[TallerSpine]

Have the pit fiend use his wish to become permanently immune to any magic or effects by these specific party members. Then, have him pretend to be enslaved, but really, he is acting of his own volition. He hangs out with the party. Learns about them. Pretends to do their bidding. He bides his time and does not slaughter them in their sleep. He has something far more fiendish in mind for them. After two or three sessions, the fiend has learned all he needs to about the party. He disappears, and the party finds they cannot scry him. They cannot cast any spells that target him. He is free, and he begins amassing an army. He sends a representative back to the party. He claims that he is still operating under their orders. One of their orders required him to leave to accomplish some great task. He will return as soon as it is complete, and this representative is there to inform them of his progress. Meanwhile, he is undermining every plan the party comes up with. He is toying with them, making them miserable. He plans to return once they are at their most vulnerable and offers to help, since he is "enslaved". But, of course, he turns on them immediately. He doesn't want to kill them, just hurt them. Unimaginable pain. He wants to heap it on them for all of eternity. They have become his pet project!

[gogogome]

The wish has no restrictions so it can use that to escape.

What about its blasphemy, power word stun, or mass hold monster? Are the PCs immune to all of those?

It's inside the magic circle meaning none of its abilities can reach the PCs. teleporting summoned creatures was the only loophole he has and even then they couldn't break the circle for them. Their best hope was getting the PCs to accidentally disrupt the circle during the fight but that didn't happen. For example, throwing a PC onto the circle won't break it because of the "can't interfere indirectly" rule, but if the PC decided to stand up or move then the circle would break.


How much silly are wishes allowed to be?
The pit fiend could use his wish to make an infinitely powerful staff with all spells at infinite cl(in his hands of course and with some safeties against it being stolen) and proceed to gate an infinity of pit fiends to attack the players.
That is 100% raw legal and is simply the use of one of the safe clauses of wish.

No custom magic items allowed. Also no "greater effect" of wish. It is used as a spell as written.

[TallerSpine]

No custom magic items allowed. Also no "greater effect" of wish. It is used as a spell as written.

I still think deception is going to be his greatest asset. Let him stew for a while in the circle, but before he is actually enslaved, have him pretend to be enslaved.

[Psyren]

It's inside the magic circle meaning none of its abilities can reach the PCs. teleporting summoned creatures was the only loophole he has and even then they couldn't break the circle for them. Their best hope was getting the PCs to accidentally disrupt the circle during the fight but that didn't happen. For example, throwing a PC onto the circle won't break it because of the "can't interfere indirectly" rule, but if the PC decided to stand up or move then the circle would break.

Wish ignores local conditions so it can poof, no problem. If they try to bind it again, they get a new Pit Fiend, simple.

[gogogome]

Wish ignores local conditions so it can poof, no problem. If they try to bind it again, they get a new Pit Fiend, simple.

I can't find the rules that says it can do that.


I still think deception is going to be his greatest asset. Let him stew for a while in the circle, but before he is actually enslaved, have him pretend to be enslaved.

Hard to deceive against Geas and Necrotic Cyst... If I see an opportunity I will, like if his tumor is dispelled.

[Psyren]

I can't find the rules that says it can do that.

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

Presumably the Pit Fiend would be willing, and a creature's own abilities ignore its spell resistance. (I can cite that one too if you like.)

[Segev]

I actually think the Pit Fiend cheated by summoning devils that teleported through the circle.

The Pit Fiend being assumed to have its wish available and always be a new one with its wish available is a bit twisted; if it is allowed to use that wish to escape, it makes Pit Fiends unbindable. Is it your intent to render them immune to this spell?

[TallerSpine]

Hard to deceive against Geas and Necrotic Cyst... If I see an opportunity I will, like if his tumor is dispelled.

Geas is automatically dispelled by Wish. Give him a wand of Protection from evil (for when he is trying to stop one of his underlings from usurping his power) and max ranks in Use Magic Device. Yeah, it is cross class for the pit fiend, but so what? With max ranks, he can have a +18 to his Use Magic Device score. Once he casts Protection from Evil, it blocks the Necrotic Cyst spell automatically. It also blocks Mind Affecting-Effects, so he would be immune to Geas. Then, he claims to be geased/cysted, and poof. They let him out.

[Zancloufer]

First: It can attempt to "break" the Magic Circle by forcing a Caster Level check vs it's 32 SR. If the caster of the magic circle fails to beat his SR he instantly shatters the Magic Circle. Once the magic circle is broken he can attempt to use his Greater Teleport to escape, again making an opposed check vs his SR.

Also he has both Magic Circle against good and Unholy Aura which explicitly stop all those attempts to forcefully mind-screw him. Any sort of Charm, Compulsion or Domination against the Pit Fiend instantly fails as he has multiple at will spells that block them.

Necrotic Cyst Might work, but her can gain +27 Fort save vs a level 2 spell. Also 32 SR.

[TallerSpine]

First: It can attempt to "break" the Magic Circle by forcing a Caster Level check vs it's 32 SR. If the caster of the magic circle fails to beat his SR he instantly shatters the Magic Circle. Once the magic circle is broken he can attempt to use his Greater Teleport to escape, again making an opposed check vs his SR.

Also he has both Magic Circle against good and Unholy Aura which explicitly stop all those attempts to forcefully mind-screw him. Any sort of Charm, Compulsion or Domination against the Pit Fiend instantly fails as he has multiple at will spells that block them.

Necrotic Cyst Might work, but her can gain +27 Fort save vs a level 2 spell. Also 32 SR.

Check the part of the magic circle that refers to adding a diagram. The creature can no longer make those daily attempts. But, the Dimensional Anchor effect is not automatic. It would need to pass the pit fiend's spell resistance and saving throw. In fact, the party would need to succeed on a LOT of caster level checks against its spell resistance. Geas offers spell resistance. Necrotic Cyst offers spell resistance. And, you have no idea if the spell worked or not. You can try detect magic to see if you spot the enchantment in place, I suppose.

[tyckspoon]

Geas is automatically dispelled by Wish. Give him a wand of Protection from evil (for when he is trying to stop one of his underlings from usurping his power) and max ranks in Use Magic Device. Yeah, it is cross class for the pit fiend, but so what? With max ranks, he can have a +18 to his Use Magic Device score. Once he casts Protection from Evil, it blocks the Necrotic Cyst spell automatically. It also blocks Mind Affecting-Effects, so he would be immune to Geas. Then, he claims to be geased/cysted, and poof. They let him out.

Pit Fiends have at-will Magic Circle Against Good and Unholy Aura, which includes a Protect From X benefit against mental control. No wand needed, he's protected against overly-aggressive mental influence two ways there. Let the players try to knock those down - the Pit Fiend has more uses of them than the players have access to high-CL Dispels to remove them. It also has at-will Greater Dispel Magic that it can use to attempt to remove any negative spells that don't directly stop it from doing so if the players try to stack debuffs onto it.



First: It can attempt to "break" the Magic Circle by forcing a Caster Level check vs it's 32 SR. If the caster of the magic circle fails to beat his SR he instantly shatters the Magic Circle. Once the magic circle is broken he can attempt to use his Greater Teleport to escape, again making an opposed check vs his SR.


I would assume the Circle is diagrammed, which explicitly prevents testing it with SR - otherwise the Pit Fiend could just fight its summoners with its spell-likes and reach, since a non-diagram Magic Circle also doesn't prevent the called creature from attacking across it with ranged effects.

[TallerSpine]

Pit Fiends have at-will Magic Circle Against Good and Unholy Aura, which includes a Protect From X benefit against mental control. No wand needed, he's protected against overly-aggressive mental influence two ways there. Let the players try to knock those down - the Pit Fiend has more uses of them than the players have access to high-CL Dispels to remove them. It also has at-will Greater Dispel Magic that it can use to attempt to remove any negative spells that don't directly stop it from doing so if the players try to stack debuffs onto it.

I suggested Protection from Evil specifically to stop Necrotic Cyst. From the spell: "Protection from evil or a similar spell prevents the necrotic cyst from forming." If Unholy Aura works to prevent it from forming, all the better.

[tyckspoon]

I suggested Protection from Evil specifically to stop Necrotic Cyst. From the spell: "Protection from evil or a similar spell prevents the necrotic cyst from forming." If Unholy Aura works to prevent it from forming, all the better.

Magic Circle is specifically just area Protection From (Alignment), and Unholy Aura 'blocks possession and mental influence just as Protection From (Alignment) does', which should certainly qualify it as a similar spell for purposes of Necrotic Cyst. So, yeah, the players can try to take control of the Pit Fiend, but they have a minimum of three layers of defense to overcome to do it in Prot. From Good (itself defended by the Pit Fiend's caster level), Spell Resistance, and the relevant Saving Throw (which is increased by Unholy Aura if they haven't realized they need to dispel that first.) And if it comes down to it, as already mentioned a Wish can just straight up take that Pit Fiend wherever it wants to go.

[Shark Uppercut]

"Transport travelers: A wish can lift one creature per caster level from anywhere on any plane and place those creatures anywhere else on any plane regardless of local conditions. "


I assumed that "local conditions" were planar traits, like prison-planes that have ways of preventing you from escaping. Or weather that would normally interfere with spellcasting or teleportation.

Using the logic of "local conditions" = "anything that's affecting me, including spells", could a Wish bypass Dimensional Anchor?

[noob]

No custom magic items allowed. Also no "greater effect" of wish. It is used as a spell as written.
Creating a magic item of infinite cl and value is not a greater effect for wish.
Anyway scrolls of gate are a thing so he can make one to gate a pit fiend then the gated pit fiend use his gate power to gate pit fiends and so on.

[the_david]

Would it be possible for the Pit Fiend to use its Greater Dispel Magic (at will!) against the Magic Circle? It says that its abilities cannot cross the Magic Circle, but it wouldn't technically be crossing, right?

Edit: And the Planar Binding, and the Dimensional Anchor, obviously.

[Segev]

I assumed that "local conditions" were planar traits, like prison-planes that have ways of preventing you from escaping. Or weather that would normally interfere with spellcasting or teleportation.

Using the logic of "local conditions" = "anything that's affecting me, including spells", could a Wish bypass Dimensional Anchor?

That is a typical reading of the wish spell's instant transport clause around here, at least.

[Calthropstu]

Greater planar binding can only bind 18 hd. Pit fiends have 20.

nvm. Another pf vs 3.5 change.

[tyckspoon]

Would it be possible for the Pit Fiend to use its Greater Dispel Magic (at will!) against the Magic Circle? It says that its abilities cannot cross the Magic Circle, but it wouldn't technically be crossing, right?

The binding technique used explicitly prevents the called creature from acting against the circle itself, even indirectly.

[Quertus]

Once he casts Protection from Evil, it blocks the Necrotic Cyst spell automatically. It also blocks Mind Affecting-Effects, so he would be immune to Geas. Then, he claims to be geased/cysted, and poof. They let him out.


And, you have no idea if the spell worked or not. You can try detect magic to see if you spot the enchantment in place, I suppose.

Um... This seems like a bluff doomed to failure, given that a caster can automatically just tell whether or not their spell succeeded in 3e.

[TallerSpine]

Um... This seems like a bluff doomed to failure, given that a caster can automatically just tell whether or not their spell succeeded in 3e.

I do not remember reading that. Do you have a reference? In fact, I specifically remember reading several spell discriptions where is specifically states "the caster knows if the spell succeeded" which would imply that normally, that is not the case.

[Beheld]

Would it be possible for the Pit Fiend to use its Greater Dispel Magic (at will!) against the Magic Circle? It says that its abilities cannot cross the Magic Circle, but it wouldn't technically be crossing, right?

Edit: And the Planar Binding, and the Dimensional Anchor, obviously.


A successful diagram allows you to cast a dimensional anchor spell on the magic circle during the round before casting any summoning spell. The anchor holds any called creatures in the magic circle for 24 hours per caster level.

The trapped creature can do nothing that disturbs the circle, directly or indirectly, but other creatures can.

I think by RAW you can dispel the Dimensional Anchor with the Dispel Magic, and then Greater Teleport away.


I assumed that "local conditions" were planar traits, like prison-planes that have ways of preventing you from escaping. Or weather that would normally interfere with spellcasting or teleportation.

Using the logic of "local conditions" = "anything that's affecting me, including spells", could a Wish bypass Dimensional Anchor?

In this case the Pit Fiend is subject to Dimensional Anchor, and that's the only thing stopping him from leaving.

He has greater teleport at will, and neither magic circle nor planar binding prevent him from leaving.

If Wish lets him leave, it is solely because it bypasses a Dimensional Anchor cast into the circle.

[Deophaun]

I do not remember reading that. Do you have a reference? In fact, I specifically remember reading several spell discriptions where is specifically states "the caster knows if the spell succeeded" which would imply that normally, that is not the case.
Here you go:

Succeeding on a Saving Throw: A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack. For example, if you secretly cast charm person on a creature and its saving throw succeeds, it knows that someone used magic against it, but it can’t tell what you were trying to do. Likewise, if a creature’s saving throw succeeds against a targeted spell, such as charm person, you sense that the spell has failed. You do not sense when creatures succeed on saves against effect and area spells.

[TallerSpine]

Fair enough. Then the wish should be powerful to give the pit fiend the power of a Master Spy to trick them into thinking the spell succeeded.

[gogogome]

Wish is a 5,000xp level 9 spell and considered the ultimate magic spell, so I think it should overcome the level 4 spell Dimensional anchor.

This would make the Pit Fiend unbindable I guess unless he does decide to create a scroll of Gate. Guaranteed escape v.s. chance to kill party... I think Pit Fiends would play it safe.

Necrotic Cyst is stopped by protection from evil or similar spells. I believe similar spells mean spells that protect it from evil like magic circle against evil, because it wouldn't make any sense for a protection from good spell to stop an Evil spell, but I will have to rule lawyer this one harder. I play by RAW.

Protection of Evil specifically says it only works against evil creatures, or doesn't affect good creatures, and the mental control is the only effect that works regardless of alignment. Necrotic Cyst is Evil, and not a mind controlling spell, so I don't see any reason why a protection from good or an Unholy Aura would save you from it.

If anyone has a contradicting RAW rule, or a supporting RAW rule, I'm all ears.

So the geas would be worthless. Good to know. I'll keep silent and punish the players for making that mistake.

[RoboEmperor]

I just want to point out a lot of DMs say the creature trapped in the magic circle is also protected by the magic circle, so the Pit Fiend has a protection of evil effect on him as long as he is in the circle, preventing the necrotic cyst from growing.

The only way you're gonna land a necrotic cyst on a pit fiend is if you knock it out with nonlethal damage, dispel all protection effects on him, and then land the necrotic cyst spells.

[Deophaun]

I just want to point out a lot of DMs say the creature trapped in the magic circle is also protected by the magic circle, so the Pit Fiend has a protection of evil effect on him as long as he is in the circle, preventing the necrotic cyst from growing.
What is this "a lot?" Would those DMs also rule that creatures outside a cleric's magic circle are also protected by the magic circle from the cleric's spells? The spell description tells you that the circle in this configuration is inside out, so if it somehow protects the creature in the former, it must also protect in the later.

[RoboEmperor]

What is this "a lot?" Would those DMs also rule that creatures outside a cleric's magic circle are also protected by the magic circle from the cleric's spells? The spell description tells you that the circle in this configuration is inside out, so if it somehow protects the creature in the former, it must also protect in the later.

I had a huge debate about it on this forum a while back, but IIRC tippy himself said the outsider is protected from evil.

Basically because of this one poorly written sentence:


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.

All the DMs that hate planar binding say anyone in the circle, regardless whether it is bound inward or outward, is protected from evil.

I interpreted it as "If failed, then outsider gets buffed", but others interpret it as "Gets trapped and protected, but if failed, then only gets the protection".

It's the protection effect that keeps the outsider imprisoned, so everyone outside the circle should be protected from evil against that creature, but whatever, people stopped arguing with me and the thread just died.

This was way back when I was trying to charm the outsider into service.

Trying to get free service with the built in charisma check --> Anti-Planar Binding people say no free service, all outsiders are smart and will just wait for the magic circle to end --> Use mind-affecting spells to get free service --> Anti-Planar Binding people say outsiders are protected from evil --> Mailman sorcerer using nonlethal metamagic orb of fire to pelt the outsider unconscious and then applying necrotic cyst --> I win!

[Beheld]

This was way back when I was trying to charm the outsider into service.

Trying to get free service with the built in charisma check --> Anti-Planar Binding people say no free service, all outsiders are smart and will just wait for the magic circle to end --> Use mind-affecting spells to get free service --> Anti-Planar Binding people say outsiders are protected from evil --> Mailman sorcerer using nonlethal metamagic orb of fire to pelt the outsider unconscious and then applying necrotic cyst --> I win!

---> DMs who just houserule things when they don't want the PCs to have infinite armies of monsters of greater CR than themselves, instead of pretending they are playing RAW and having to keep making up new reasons it doesn't work for 30 minutes ---> everyone just plays the game and has fun without an army that is several hundred times more badass than your character.

[Deophaun]

Basically because of this one poorly written sentence:
Here is the problem: if you interpret that sentence to mean that the creature gets the buff, instead of it just protecting everyone else from that creature and that creature alone, then that means any creature that you summon that's too big for the circle isn't restricted by it and gets a buff, regardless. Because it's working as a normal protection from evil, and normal protection from evil spells do not restrict their subjects.

If you're still giving the creature a saving throw and a chance to be bound even though that clause is in play and you've ruled that clause grants protection, your interpretation is incoherent.

And if the creature isn't larger than the 20' diameter circle, then the clause has nothing to do with how the spell works in that instance anyway. The pit fiend is Large, so it comfortably sits within the spell's area, so the clause is irrelevant.

If, meanwhile, the DM does not like planar binding, then the DM does not like planar binding and it doesn't matter what the spell says; I don't begrudge DMs nerfing the spell (which is why I talk to my DMs about the spell before I take it/intend to use it), but I do expect them to be honest about it and not pretend that their hands are tied simply because if you translate RAW from English to Chinese to Russian to Tagalog to Assembly and back to English, you get gibberish.

But, in this current case, we have a DM sticking to RAW in good faith, so I don't see that as an issue.

[RoboEmperor]

---> DMs who just houserule things when they don't want the PCs to have infinite armies of monsters of greater CR than themselves, instead of pretending they are playing RAW and having to keep making up new reasons it doesn't work for 30 minutes ---> everyone just plays the game and has fun without an army that is several hundred times more badass than your character.

Ask the player to not break the game and they'll comply. If not kick them.

Trying to balance high level spellcasters with a **** ton of houserules is a red flag for a bad dm.

[Beheld]

Ask the player to not break the game and they'll comply. If not kick them.

Trying to balance high level spellcasters with a **** ton of houserules is a red flag for a bad dm.

"DM's who houserule things is a redflag for bad DMs" That has to be the dumbest insult anyone ever made against me ever.

[gogogome]

"DM's who houserule things is a redflag for bad DMs" That has to be the dumbest insult anyone ever made against me ever.

I agree with someonenoone11 in this matter. People join games expecting to play d&d, but a crybaby DM crying about how everything is imbalanced and changing everything in the game to what he thinks is balanced because he has 0 system mastery is a redflag for any DM.

Like this thread for example. I posted in this forum to try and solve the matter at hand within the rules of d&d. Well actually not "solve" because I don't care if the players enslave a pit fiend.

If I made a houserule that you can't elicit free service from a planar bound outsider with the charisma check, you have to follow planar ally rules because it's "balanced", and any spell cast at the outsider will break the circle including dimensional prison, it renders the spell useless.

How would I come off in that scenario? Would I come off as a wise DM that everyone loves? Or would I come off as a crybaby scrub yelling that everything is imbalanced?

If an enslaved pit fiend would break the campaign, I simply ask the players to not do that and they don't. They bind something much weaker, like a marilith, or even a bebilith if the marilith makes a party member feel useless. The planar binder in my games never binds an army. He just likes to be a demon master because heroes like you see on Lord of the Rings bore him. If I made house rules that made planar binding worthless even though he never breaks any campaigns, how would he feel? Would he feel like this is an awesome d&d session and I'm an awesome DM, or would he feel like I'm a crybaby DM who doesn't trust his players, has 0 skill, and makes houserules because I don't know how to play the game?

We're here to play d&d, and house ruling to balance things (especially things that don't need balance) instead of house ruling for fun is a red flag. It really does show that the DM has 0 system mastery and doesn't trust his players.

When I was a player, I had a DM who put a limit on Uncanny Forethought as soon as he read its description (he didn't know it existed before). Why? He just learned of its existence, why would he put a limit on something he has never used or seen before? Needless to say because this broke my wizard character I was playing, which was far from optimized since he doesn't use a spell book so he can't actually prepare any spells, I lost all respect for that DM and never played with him again.

Players build their characters using RAW before joining the game, and destroying their characters because I think everything is unbalanced is a very bad thing.

That's how I feel anyways, and why I play RAW, and why I disagree with you house ruling planar binding just because it gives a player the potential to break your game. If you ask him not to bind an army, and he doesn't listen, then the problem is the player not the game. House ruling every optimized build so they're destroyed instead of asking the players not to play something too powerful for the campaign is not good.

[Beheld]

1) I think it's really weird that you bang on and on about "skill." And insulting people with ideas about the game with skill based insults like "skrub." I mean, I can TPK the party anytime I want by having them gated. I can also challenge them by having an army of 50001 Solars to fight them and their army of 50000 Solars. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't rather play a game that doesn't have a 50000 Solars vs 50000 Solars. Not wanting to play that game of huge armies because you think D&D is a better game without it is not particularly reflective of skill.

2) I find it really really really really weird that you say that someone houseruling for balance has "zero skill." There are certainly bad houserules that could exist, but what this reminds me of are the arguments during the Pathfinder beta, were monks weren't allowed to have full BAB because "backwards compatibility." It reminds me of that, because I recall many times people defending it saying that people advocating for a super minor buff to the Monk would unbalance the game, because they didn't have the system mastery to know if that would make them overpowered.

And quite aside from the question of if the Monk needs buffs (yes, obviously) it sort of seems generally correct that people with really good system mastery are more likely to have both a good idea of what changes to make, and specific changes they think should be made. It seems the idea that "wanting to change some rules means you have poor system mastery" seems exactly wrong. People with significant mastery are aware of many areas that are improved by change.

3) "Please players don't use Planar Binding to Bind a Pit Fiend" is literally a houserule that Planar Binding doesn't bind Pit Fiends. It is identical in effect. Now, I personally prefer a better houserule, like actually defining what a service is such that Planar Binding can be used for most of the stuff you would use it for, and even occasionally for supplements in the tactical combat, but that it can't be used to have a huge army, but if you are going to ask your players not to do something, and not do the same thing with your NPCs, then that's just a houserule by another name.

[RoboEmperor]

1) I think it's really weird that you bang on and on about "skill." And insulting people with ideas about the game with skill based insults like "skrub." I mean, I can TPK the party anytime I want by having them gated. I can also challenge them by having an army of 50001 Solars to fight them and their army of 50000 Solars. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't rather play a game that doesn't have a 50000 Solars vs 50000 Solars. Not wanting to play that game of huge armies because you think D&D is a better game without it is not particularly reflective of skill.

You must have some really horrible players for this to be an issue. Or you're pulling out a hypothetical that never happens in a real game. If it's the former then I'm sorry, if it's the latter then you are one cynical person


3) "Please players don't use Planar Binding to Bind a Pit Fiend" is literally a houserule that Planar Binding doesn't bind Pit Fiends. It is identical in effect. Now, I personally prefer a better houserule, like actually defining what a service is such that Planar Binding can be used for most of the stuff you would use it for, and even occasionally for supplements in the tactical combat, but that it can't be used to have a huge army, but if you are going to ask your players not to do something, and not do the same thing with your NPCs, then that's just a houserule by another name.

One lets a player use their shtick to play a type of character they want. They can easily fluff it as "Pit fiends are too dangerous and not worth the risk"

The other flat out kills the character.

It's not a house rule because the player can bind the pit fiend or balor later if the party really, really needs one, at which point they'll say it's worth the risk. My awesome DM made an encounter where we had to get a Balor to distract the final boss's fallen solar, neither of them being able to kill each other, and once we killed the final boss and the solar, the solar in his final action freed the balor and we had to deal with that. It was awesome. I am so lucky to have this DM.

A character that focuses around calling and buffing a BSF outsider is far from optimized, but forcing a gp drain on that far from optimized character will outright kill it, which is why the player chose to use Planar Binding instead of Planar Ally, but a DM saying "nothing should be free in this world" and invokes all kind of lore-breaking shenanigans to TPK the party if they don't pay the Planar Ally costs or throws a bunch of house rules just to kill your character then... you don't call him an awesome DM. You say the exact opposite.


2) I find it really really really really weird that you say that someone houseruling for balance has "zero skill." There are certainly bad houserules that could exist, but what this reminds me of are the arguments during the Pathfinder beta, were monks weren't allowed to have full BAB because "backwards compatibility." It reminds me of that, because I recall many times people defending it saying that people advocating for a super minor buff to the Monk would unbalance the game, because they didn't have the system mastery to know if that would make them overpowered.

And quite aside from the question of if the Monk needs buffs (yes, obviously) it sort of seems generally correct that people with really good system mastery are more likely to have both a good idea of what changes to make, and specific changes they think should be made. It seems the idea that "wanting to change some rules means you have poor system mastery" seems exactly wrong. People with significant mastery are aware of many areas that are improved by change.

House rules to buff mundanes is fine, although personally I would reject them because the reason I would play a monk is to intentionally give myself a handicap for some other optimization shenanigan.

House rules to nerf anything though, this is the big NO. If you're trying to nerf the power-gaming TO level wizard who is hogging the game and ruining the campaign, don't. Kick him, because wizards have 999999999 million ways to kill the game, and killing every single one of those methods will result in normal level wizards becoming utter trash.

[gogogome]

I'm sorry if I insulted you Beheld.

When I said crybaby DM I was referring to my past DMs, not you specifically.

Again sorry if I came across condescending.

[Beheld]

One lets a player use their shtick to play a type of character they want. They can easily fluff it as "Pit fiends are too dangerous and not worth the risk"

The other flat out kills the character.

It's not a house rule because the player can bind the pit fiend or balor later if the party really, really needs one, at which point they'll say it's worth the risk. My awesome DM made an encounter where we had to get a Balor to distract the final boss's fallen solar, neither of them being able to kill each other, and once we killed the final boss and the solar, the solar in his final action freed the balor and we had to deal with that. It was awesome. I am so lucky to have this DM.

A character that focuses around calling and buffing a BSF outsider is far from optimized, but forcing a gp drain on that far from optimized character will outright kill it, which is why the player chose to use Planar Binding instead of Planar Ally, but a DM saying "nothing should be free in this world" and invokes all kind of lore-breaking shenanigans to TPK the party if they don't pay the Planar Ally costs or throws a bunch of house rules just to kill your character then... you don't call him an awesome DM. You say the exact opposite.

You seemed to have decided to argue with some past experience instead of me and decided that reading what I type is a waste of your time. So I'll leave you to that.

[RoboEmperor]

You seemed to have decided to argue with some past experience instead of me and decided that reading what I type is a waste of your time. So I'll leave you to that.

I was under the assumption your house rule for planar binding would be something similar to what i've experienced. If your house rule was something like "maximum one outsider can be bound" I can live with that, but if your house rule was "You have to pay gp, no matter what for service. The gp cost prevents army. The outsider in the magic circle is completely impervious to everything and even the slightest spell will disrupt the circle" I'd tell you to go **** yourself.

Anyways whatever, it's not like we're gonna be changing our minds with an internet discussion.

[magicalmagicman]

It maybe just me, but I noticed that people who house rule are mundane loving anti-caster pathfinder players who only play low levels. They hate spellcasting, they hate wizards, they want fighters to be the cap of what a character can do, and they love pathfinder.

"House rule to limit army binding" XD.

How do you think evil wizards get an army of their own imps to do their biddings :P

[Beheld]

I was under the assumption your house rule for planar binding would be something similar to what i've experienced. If your house rule was something like "maximum one outsider can be bound" I can live with that, but if your house rule was "You have to pay gp, no matter what for service. The gp cost prevents army. The outsider in the magic circle is completely impervious to everything and even the slightest spell will disrupt the circle" I'd tell you to go **** yourself.

Anyways whatever, it's not like we're gonna be changing our minds with an internet discussion.

I spelled out what my houserule was and it had nothing to do with paying anything. It's, as I said, laying out a concrete definition of what a service is.


It maybe just me, but I noticed that people who house rule are mundane loving anti-caster pathfinder players who only play low levels. They hate spellcasting, they hate wizards, they want fighters to be the cap of what a character can do, and they love pathfinder.

"House rule to limit army binding" XD.

How do you think evil wizards get an army of their own imps to do their biddings :P

Yes, I'm sure these (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=48453) are just a figment of my imagination.

[Calthropstu]

It maybe just me, but I noticed that people who house rule are mundane loving anti-caster pathfinder players who only play low levels. They hate spellcasting, they hate wizards, they want fighters to be the cap of what a character can do, and they love pathfinder.

"House rule to limit army binding" XD.

How do you think evil wizards get an army of their own imps to do their biddings :P

Ummmm... it's not house ruling to limit army binding.
Read the books to see how those army binding scenarios go. The binder generally gets murdered by the creature(s) he binds. Within the rules it states "but nothing prevents the creature from getting revenge later."
And start binding pit fiends and balors... there's gonna be a whole lot of revenge. You can get past that by simply murdering them when they report to end the contract and collect payment... but that opens up the "and someone higher in the food chain decides to intervene" issue. Start chain binding solars, the direct servants of gods, and you're gonna be god smacked so hard your next character will feel it.

You guys must be playing with incredibly permissive and unrealistic gms to even think chain binding would be a *good* idea.

[RoboEmperor]

Ummmm... it's not house ruling to limit army binding.
Read the books to see how those army binding scenarios go. The binder generally gets murdered by the creature(s) he binds. Within the rules it states "but nothing prevents the creature from getting revenge later."
And start binding pit fiends and balors... there's gonna be a whole lot of revenge. You can get past that by simply murdering them when they report to end the contract and collect payment... but that opens up the "and someone higher in the food chain decides to intervene" issue. Start chain binding solars, the direct servants of gods, and you're gonna be god smacked so hard your next character will feel it.

You guys must be playing with incredibly permissive and unrealistic gms to even think chain binding would be a *good* idea.

No one is chain binding anything here. In fact no one is binding balors and pit fiends for the exact reason you stated, and especially not solars because unlike fiends there is nothing in d&d lore saying other celestials won't come to its rescue. The Pit Fiend in this topic is just the players screwing around for fun, and my balor was an end-of-campaign epicness my DM threw in for awesomeness.

I don't know about celestials but murdering demons and devils accomplishes nothing because they just respawn in the hells or the abyss.

But your comment does remind me of players who attempt wish loops of efreetis with planar binding, which kind of reminds me why a lot of DMs hate that spell. Totally forgot about that.

Anyways, as you pointed out, you can punish abusers within the rules of d&d, no house rules, which was my entire point. A sorcerer/wizard binding only 1 lesser fiend at a time incurs minimal risk where as binding an army of greater fiends would result in your death, and if the players are foolish and greedy enough to do that, you kill them like you should.

[Beheld]

Anyways, as you pointed out, you can punish abusers within the rules of d&d, no house rules, which was my entire point. A sorcerer/wizard binding only 1 lesser fiend at a time incurs minimal risk where as binding an army of greater fiends would result in your death, and if the players are foolish and greedy enough to do that, you kill them like you should.

Gary Gygax famously had rules for how to play powerful monsters in AD&D /1e.

It was the following:

Step 1) Let them play an ancient Gold Dragon starting from level 1.
Step 2) Use the fact that you are the DM to kill the entire party.
Step 3) Hope, without ever specifically telling them, that they stop trying to play monsters like dirty munchkins.

Are those good rules? Or would the rules be better if they didn't let you play a monster equivalent to a much higher level character, and tried to give you balanced rules for playing monsters, and when you couldn't play a monster at a level, just told you that you couldn't, and instead tried to present fun monster rules that don't break the game and also don't result in you punishing the player for doing what they are told is an option?

Now apply that analogy to Planar Binding.

[RoboEmperor]

Gary Gygax famously had rules for how to play powerful monsters in AD&D /1e.

It was the following:

Step 1) Let them play an ancient Gold Dragon starting from level 1.
Step 2) Use the fact that you are the DM to kill the entire party.
Step 3) Hope, without ever specifically telling them, that they stop trying to play monsters like dirty munchkins.

Are those good rules? Or would the rules be better if they didn't let you play a monster equivalent to a much higher level character, and tried to give you balanced rules for playing monsters, and when you couldn't play a monster at a level, just told you that you couldn't, and instead tried to present fun monster rules that don't break the game and also don't result in you punishing the player for doing what they are told is an option?

Now apply that analogy to Planar Binding.

that analogy doesn't quite fit the topic at hand, but I'm starting to get a better picture of how you view house rules.

I'm sure you're a good DM whose house rules don't destroy a player's shtick, let players choose alternative summon monster choices, familiars, animal companions, and monster starting races to better fit their character theme, and make up house rules to allow certain PCs to do things that they normally can't in RAW d&d.

Looking back I misinterpreted your first post so I apologize. Your first post felt like it accused me of being a game breaking exploit abusing piece of **** and made me feel like you were one of those DMs whose house rules nerf spells exclusively "for balance" to beat good player down just because he doesn't like it. I had a relatively recent horrible experience with one such DM.

Anyways that made me spiral down to saying planar binding is balanced as it is with trust and only noobs house rule spell nerfs in an attempt to "fix" the game, and you even pointed out I wasn't really arguing with you, which is because I misinterpreted your argument.

[Psyren]

I assumed that "local conditions" were planar traits, like prison-planes that have ways of preventing you from escaping. Or weather that would normally interfere with spellcasting or teleportation.

Using the logic of "local conditions" = "anything that's affecting me, including spells", could a Wish bypass Dimensional Anchor?

Absolutely, why wouldn't it? Similarly Wish can defeat Forbiddance, Lock, Unhallow etc.


I actually think the Pit Fiend cheated by summoning devils that teleported through the circle.

The Pit Fiend being assumed to have its wish available and always be a new one with its wish available is a bit twisted; if it is allowed to use that wish to escape, it makes Pit Fiends unbindable. Is it your intent to render them immune to this spell?

That would depend entirely on the players' intent when binding it. Pit Fiends are intelligent, and might be quite willing to work with a binder who can propose something mutually beneficial - especially if there is a decent chance that the Fiend can gain the upper hand over the foolish mortal later.

What I'm pointing out is that the spell itself gives you most if not all of the tools you need to keep the players in check, or at least make doing such a dangerous thing the gamble it truly is. There may be a situation so dire that the players are willing to take that risk anyway, and that risk can even pay off big.

[Yogibear41]

What Exactly do they want the Pit Fiend for anyway?

Heck my DM let me summon a pit fiend with my LE paladin using the Sacrifice rules in BOVD to cast Greater Planar Binding, he even ruled that the sacrifice payed the "bargaining" cost as well. Got the bad boy to fly over and destroy an enemy village for me.

[gogogome]

What Exactly do they want the Pit Fiend for anyway?

Nothing. They thought it'd be cool. This is the first time they're doing it and they seem to have forgotten Unholy Aura seeing how they're talking about Geas.

[Yogibear41]

Geas only works for 1 task anyway. As soon as the pit fiend does what ever they ask him to its over. Nothing wrong with having the thing do the one task, then immediately return to hell and starting planning its revenged on the PCs for enslaving it. Not to mention now that it has seen them in action it can plan way more accordingly to counter what they can do.

[noob]

There is a solution against the creature getting revenge later: when a demon/devil/whathever evil outsider you bind die in his home plane he do not come back to life and gets no replacement.
So if you necrotic cyst him to kill himself when he goes to his home plane he will not be able to take revenge.

[RoboEmperor]

There is a solution against the creature getting revenge later: when a demon/devil/whathever evil outsider you bind die in his home plane he do not come back to life and gets no replacement.
So if you necrotic cyst him to kill himself when he goes to his home plane he will not be able to take revenge.

Necrotic Tumor is PERMANENT duration. Why on earth would you have it kill himself? lol

[Beheld]

Looking back I misinterpreted your first post so I apologize. Your first post felt like it accused me of being a game breaking exploit abusing piece of **** and made me feel like you were one of those DMs whose house rules nerf spells exclusively "for balance" to beat good player down just because he doesn't like it. I had a relatively recent horrible experience with one such DM.

Well my first post was back on page 1, talking about dispel magic. But my first post on this page was specifically a criticism of, DMs who say they let you cast Planar Binding and it's not banned, but then create progressively sillies "interpretations" of the rules until they finally prevent you from using Planar Binding.

On more than one occasion on this forum, people have advocated that "any request at all of any kind" is an "unreasonable" request and therefore if you cast Planar Binding, no one will ever agree to any service and you can **** right off, but they claim this is purely RAW and not a houserule to prevent people from Planar Binding.

[RoboEmperor]

Well my first post was back on page 1, talking about dispel magic. But my first post on this page was specifically a criticism of, DMs who say they let you cast Planar Binding and it's not banned, but then create progressively sillies "interpretations" of the rules until they finally prevent you from using Planar Binding.

On more than one occasion on this forum, people have advocated that "any request at all of any kind" is an "unreasonable" request and therefore if you cast Planar Binding, no one will ever agree to any service and you can **** right off, but they claim this is purely RAW and not a houserule to prevent people from Planar Binding.

Yeah, we hate the same thing yet i was getting mad at you @_@. This is not the first time I misunderstood someone on this forum and things got heated.

Again my bad. But to be fair, it seemed the OP also misunderstood you too lol. or maybe I caused that too.

[Crake]

magic circle only stops the creature's SR, it still gets a cha check to break free. It also only stops the creature from attacking things outside the circle, so if you try to touch it with a touch spell, you're in a world of hurt. I've also known DMs who extend the protection both ways, so you cannot affect the trapped creature without breaking the circle, except by means of the opposed charisma check. Their reasoning was that by casting a spell across the barrier, you'd be disturbing it, by having an effect cross the diagram, if you didn't use the diagram, you could cast spells across the circle without issue, but then you wouldn't be extended the same level of protection. Personally, I think it's an acceptable houserule, otherwise it turns planar binding from a tool to gain a temporary, powerful, yet begrudging minion into an interplanar assassination spell, which I think just perverts the intent of the spell.

[gogogome]

Again my bad. But to be fair, it seemed the OP also misunderstood you too lol. or maybe I caused that too.

No, his post was misleading.

You were alternating between a player trying to use planar binding and a DM hell bent on stopping the player. On his post it sounded like he was continuing the chain and describing a DM now using house rules to stop the player because he lost in the RAW fight. It doesn't help that his main point was stopping an army of enslaved outsiders.

I still feel embarassed though for typing a wall of text over a misunderstanding.

[Beheld]

No, his post was misleading.

You were alternating between a player trying to use planar binding and a DM hell bent on stopping the player. On his post it sounded like he was continuing the chain and describing a DM now using house rules to stop the player because he lost in the RAW fight. It doesn't help that his main point was stopping an army of enslaved outsiders.

I still feel embarassed though for typing a wall of text over a misunderstanding.

"instead of pretending they are playing RAW and having to keep making up new reasons it doesn't work for 30 minutes"

[gogogome]

"instead of pretending they are playing RAW and having to keep making up new reasons it doesn't work for 30 minutes"

Yeah first part said house ruling to nerf planar binding so it can't bind an army, then that part sounded like the DM stopped pretending he's playing RAW and just flat out house rules in the open to nerf planar binding to stop the player from receiving "free" service. Then everyone having a good time sounded like the DM put the player in his place because he was a problem player and everyone is happy now that he's dead or gone or w.e. which meant it sounded like you were calling someonenoone11 a problem player and that house rules to nerf planar binding so there is no "free" service is right.

Someonenoone11 was talking about "free" service, and you started talking about an army and its nerfing and I think that's where the confusion started. It implied he was gonna abuse mother cyst to bind an army of fiends and break the campaign.

[The_Jette]

Where did they summon him? If it's inside a building/cave/etc, then I don't see why the Pit Fiend wouldn't just reach up and start trying to bring the ceiling down, hoping to disrupt the circle. If they're out in a field, it might be worth it for the Pit Fiend to use his 1/year Wish Spell to copy Plane Shift to pull in another Pit Fiend outside of the circle. That Pit Fiend breaks the circle, and both of them beat down the party. Then, they go on a murder spree across the material planes until they get taken out, or get bored and go home. Don't forget: Devils are Lawful. They will work together if it furthers their own cause.

[Segev]

First off, it's been pointed out that greater planar binding caps out at 18HD creatures, so it doesn't work on Pit Fiends anyway.

Secondly, anything planar binding or its siblings can call is expressly forbidden from directly or indirection interfering with the circle that contains them. This means no summoning minions to break it, no wrecking the building to break it, etc. Best they can do is try to talk somebody else into letting them go.

[Calthropstu]

Where did they summon him? If it's inside a building/cave/etc, then I don't see why the Pit Fiend wouldn't just reach up and start trying to bring the ceiling down, hoping to disrupt the circle. If they're out in a field, it might be worth it for the Pit Fiend to use his 1/year Wish Spell to copy Plane Shift to pull in another Pit Fiend outside of the circle. That Pit Fiend breaks the circle, and both of them beat down the party. Then, they go on a murder spree across the material planes until they get taken out, or get bored and go home. Don't forget: Devils are Lawful. They will work together if it furthers their own cause.

They would be more likely to bring in one of their underlings. Maybe a cornugon or something else of similar power. Devils respect power, and having to call in another pit fiend would severely hurt its long term standing.

[The_Jette]

They would be more likely to bring in one of their underlings. Maybe a cornugon or something else of similar power. Devils respect power, and having to call in another pit fiend would severely hurt its long term standing.

Maybe. But, the party just took down two of its underlings, and any Pit Fiend that was called would probably be more than happy to take advantage of the situation given. It might try to destroy the party solo, and then sneer at the trapped Pit Fiend while standing atop the bodies of the fallen group and taunt him about how he was trapped by these mortals. I just don't see why the Pit Fiend would use his one shot ability to call in another Horned Devil (Cornugon) when they already killed the two that he called first.

[The_Jette]

First off, it's been pointed out that greater planar binding caps out at 18HD creatures, so it doesn't work on Pit Fiends anyway.

Secondly, anything planar binding or its siblings can call is expressly forbidden from directly or indirection interfering with the circle that contains them. This means no summoning minions to break it, no wrecking the building to break it, etc. Best they can do is try to talk somebody else into letting them go.

In 3.5, Pit Fiends have 18hd. And, Planar Binding can't be affected by the summoned creature directly, or indirectly. However, it specifically states that other creatures can affect it. Sure, knocking down the beams supporting the ceiling might not work, but it stretches believability that a level 3 spell can prevent a 9th level spell from working because it's for the purposes of summoning help. The creatures bound in a Planar Binding spell is expected to try to escape if you're not dealing with it fairly. Given the PC's plans for the Pit Fiend, it sounds like he has plenty of reason to try to escape. I would go so far as to say that taking a hit to his station in hell might be worth it in order to gate in help to escape the fate these mortals have for him.

[Beheld]

I maintain that as of RAW he can totally dispel magic the dimensional anchor, and then leave. Obviously I would personally houserule that he can't do that, since there probably should be some way to planar bind creatures with dispel magic and teleport.

[The_Jette]

I maintain that as of RAW he can totally dispel magic the dimensional anchor, and then leave. Obviously I would personally houserule that he can't do that, since there probably should be some way to planar bind creatures with dispel magic and teleport.

It's called bribing them...

[Deophaun]

I maintain that as of RAW he can totally dispel magic the dimensional anchor, and then leave.
By RAW, the dimensional anchor is part of the circle:

A successful diagram allows you to cast a dimensional anchor spell on the magic circle during the round before casting any summoning spell.
It is forbidden from disturbing the circle.

The trapped creature can do nothing that disturbs the circle, directly or indirectly, but other creatures can.

So no; by RAW he cannot "totally dispel magic the dimensional anchor" that is reinforcing the circle, because that's the definition of "disturb."

If you are forbidden from directly or indirectly disturbing a lake, that does not mean you get to pull dirt from the opposite side of the levy until it fails just because the levy was something added to the lake after.

[Beheld]

By RAW, the dimensional anchor is part of the circle:

It is forbidden from disturbing the circle.


So no; by RAW he cannot "totally dispel magic the dimensional anchor" that is reinforcing the circle, because that's the definition of "disturb."

If you are forbidden from directly or indirectly disturbing a lake, that does not mean you get to pull dirt from the opposite side of the levy until it fails just because the levy was something added to the lake after.

The circle isn't being disturbed. You dispel the Dimensional Anchor, and the circle is still there, and still undisturbed.

[Calthropstu]

Wish can duplicate any spell right?

Anti-magic field. Walk right out of the circle.

[Deophaun]

The circle isn't being disturbed. You dispel the Dimensional Anchor, and the circle is still there, and still undisturbed.
No, it is disturbed because you removed the buff from it. Just as the BBEG is disturbed when you hit him with a dispel magic. From the later part of your statement you have obviously equated "disturbed" with "erased from existence," and that's not what "disturbed" means.

[Psyren]

First off, it's been pointed out that greater planar binding caps out at 18HD creatures, so it doesn't work on Pit Fiends anyway.

Secondly, anything planar binding or its siblings can call is expressly forbidden from directly or indirection interfering with the circle that contains them. This means no summoning minions to break it, no wrecking the building to break it, etc. Best they can do is try to talk somebody else into letting them go.

I think there are ways to raise your cap but I'm not totally certain.

For the second point, they can't interfere once they're in it - but having a pre-existing arrangement with a fellow devil, a diabolic cultist, an evil deity's minions or some other being to 'port over and disrupt the circle should be totally fine. I would use this approach as a contingency against any PCs who try to keep a powerful fiend bound for an extended period.

[Beheld]

No, it is disturbed because you removed the buff from it. Just as the BBEG is disturbed when you hit him with a dispel magic. From the later part of your statement you have obviously equated "disturbed" with "erased from existence," and that's not what "disturbed" means.

No I just obviously think the thing I said, which is that the Dimensional Anchor is a different thing from the magic circle. ERASING FROM EXISTENCE! the dimensional anchor has literally no effect of any kind on the magic circle, which remains exactly as it was. The Magic Circle is a specific thing.

[Florian]

I think there are ways to raise your cap but I'm not totally certain.

For the second point, they can't interfere once they're in it - but having a pre-existing arrangement with a fellow devil, a diabolic cultist, an evil deity's minions or some other being to 'port over and disrupt the circle should be totally fine. I would use this approach as a contingency against any PCs who try to keep a powerful fiend bound for an extended period.

I guess you think PF when talking about raising the cap on it. Blackfire Adept, Augmented Calling and Calling Tokens can raise the cap up to 9 HD in total.
If you either use an inbound facing circle or an fixed circle (Occult Mysteries, Ultimate Campaign), nothing will be able to break it.

[Psyren]

I guess you think PF when talking about raising the cap on it. Blackfire Adept, Augmented Calling and Calling Tokens can raise the cap up to 9 HD in total.

That's correct - 3.5 you don't need to raise the cap because Pit Fiends are only 18 HD there.


If you either use an inbound facing circle or an fixed circle (Occult Mysteries, Ultimate Campaign), nothing will be able to break it.

Can you link to these? Having trouble finding them.

[Florian]

That's correct - 3.5 you don't need to raise the cap because Pit Fiends are only 18 HD there.



Can you link to these? Having trouble finding them.

Summoning Chamber: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCampaign/downtime/roomsAndTeams.html

As with similar tomes and specific spell books, the Inbound-Facing Circle doesn´t seem to be on any of the online sources.

[Psyren]

Summoning Chamber: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCampaign/downtime/roomsAndTeams.html

As with similar tomes and specific spell books, the Inbound-Facing Circle doesn´t seem to be on any of the online sources.

I'm not seeing where that says it can't be broken. It just saves you some time if you're doing a lot of binding (but you still only get the one circle and you need to be back in your home base to do it, so kinda moot.) In fact, amusingly enough, it appears that in this system entire rooms can be broken or destroyed.

It also depends on Downtime which is a variant rule not all campaigns will use (or even have time for.)