Tome of Magic breaks Planar Binding?

[gogogome]

I have a player that's trying to optimize planar binding, and he shows me this quote:



10. INTERROGATION ROOM (EL 20)
The door to this room is locked (Open Lock DC 35). Inside is a powerful balor demon, forced to serve the Votaries for five hundred years by means of a carefully negotiated greater planar binding spell. Its duties consist of torturing captives and learning whatever facts it can for Crestian (see area 13). The demon’s victims rarely last for long as it immolates them in its excitement. The balor resents its binding, so it does what it can to betray and disrupt its master’s plans. If the PCs do not immediately attack the demon and attempt to parlay fi rst, it quickly divulges all it knows about Crestian and the Votaries, warning the characters that the lich lord has a sphere of annihilation.


So... Tome of Magic has a RAW example of making an open-ended task not open-ended by giving it a set duration.

So like, according to this RAW a player can say "Serve me as my loyal minion for 500 years" and it wouldn't be limited to 1day/CL.

I mean, seriously, wtf was WotC thinking?

[DeTess]

Are the exact circumstances under which this contract was made known? If they aren't then the player would probably have some serious trouble replicating it (notice the mention of a "carefully negotiated planar binding").

Also, you're the DM. If you don't like it, there's no reason you can't say no. Planar binding is powerful enough already without breaking it even further.

Edit: Also, reading between the lines here, it seems like this guy was summoned by some magical organization headed up by a Lich? Just saying, the organization might have been able to rig this up that the CL was high enough for 500 years of service to be covered by 1 CL/day.

[RoboEmperor]

Awesomeeeee, give my thanks to your player.


Are the exact circumstances under which this contract was made known? If they aren't then the player would probably have some serious trouble replicating it (notice the mention of a "carefully negotiated planar binding").

Also, you're the DM. If you don't like it, there's no reason you can't say no. Planar binding is powerful enough already without breaking it even further.

Edit: Also, reading between the lines here, it seems like this guy was summoned by some magical organization headed up by a Lich? Just saying, the organization might have been able to rig this up that the CL was high enough for 500 years of service to be covered by 1 CL/day.

You need 182,500CL for 500 years. Yeah I don't see that happening. A rule lawyer would say:
1. 182,500CL is impossible, and WotC 1st party books are never TO, so what the OP said is true.
2. Balor resents its bindings meaning it is bound against its will, as in slavery.
3. Carefully negotiated planar binding means the negotiations made it sound like 500years was not an unreasonable command. I don't know what kind of leverage the binder had on the Balor, but i think it's safe to assume it was either the threat of death or threat of permanent entrapment, both are replicatable by sufficiently powerful PCs. Or if we go by RAW, the binder merely won his charisma check.

In all cases though 500years is excessive for a party. 1 year should be enough, maybe even half that, or a month. The important thing here is that you can set a time to remove the open-endedness and drastically increase the duration.

[Mordaedil]

Note that when it says "carefully" that is basically the designers saying "don't you try it, you will fail" and NPC's can basically fiat whatever they want.

That said, it could just be that the bargain was that good in favor of the balor that he had to grudginly accept it.

[Scots Dragon]

Note that when it says "carefully" that is basically the designers saying "don't you try it, you will fail" and NPC's can basically fiat whatever they want.

That said, it could just be that the bargain was that good in favor of the balor that he had to grudginly accept it.

It was likely, given the fact that it's a massive organisation headed up by a lich, a matter of basic survival. 'Serve me for five hundred years, or we'll utterly destroy you and all trace of you.'

[Deophaun]

It was likely, given the fact that it's a massive organisation headed up by a lich, a matter of basic survival. 'Serve me for five hundred years, or we'll utterly destroy you and all trace of you.'
That's more "standard standing offer from PCs" than "carefully negotiated."

So, the balor is bound, and it gets service for 500 years from the careful negotiation of a greater planar binding. Nothing says these must be caused by the same spell. That careful negotiation? That was with that balor's boss/enemy, which gave them a weakness to exploit and up the compulsion.

Oh, and you "only" need a 91,250CL for 500 years, due to the Extend metamagic.

[Psyren]

It was likely, given the fact that it's a massive organisation headed up by a lich, a matter of basic survival. 'Serve me for five hundred years, or we'll utterly destroy you and all trace of you.'

Not just a lich - THE lich. This is Vecna we're talking about, D&D's ultimate Villain Stu, he probably has Balors doing his laundry.

[RoboEmperor]

That's more "standard standing offer from PCs" than "carefully negotiated."

So, the balor is bound, and it gets service for 500 years from the careful negotiation of a greater planar binding. Nothing says these must be caused by the same spell. That careful negotiation? That was with that balor's boss/enemy, which gave them a weakness to exploit and up the compulsion.

Oh, and you "only" need a 91,250CL for 500 years, due to the Extend metamagic.

Extend metamagic doesn't work on planar binding. It has an instantaneous duration.

In all fairness, I don't think this command is reasonable unless it is within the 1day/CL limit, but the important point here is that you can make them be your slave for 1day/CL without giving them an additional chance to escape.

[Gildedragon]

Options:
Circle Magic to up CL
Bargain with the Balor's boss (ie the demon got its freedom in exchange of binding one of his underlings for X amount of time: which explains the resentment "I'm a good (evil) loyal soldier, pay my dues, work my way up... And I get stuck in this ass-end of nowhere doing this!?")
Enslavement is the byproduct of another deal produced by the binding "play this game with me: lose and you serve for X; win and you get to do Y"
Careful wording has the timeframe for the binding in some other (slower time) plane

[Urpriest]

Not just a lich - THE lich. This is Vecna we're talking about, D&D's ultimate Villain Stu, he probably has Balors doing his laundry.

Not having read the context, was the Balor summoned when Vecna was already a god? If so there are probably some SDAs that could have been involved.

[Hackulator]

You should let him do this, horribly screw him over somehow, point to the same passage and say "you didn't negotiate carefully enough."

I mean, unless you have ****ty players who wouldn't be able to laugh about that.

[Psyren]

Not having read the context, was the Balor summoned when Vecna was already a god? If so there are probably some SDAs that could have been involved.

I mean, does it honestly matter? Vecna is like Asmodeus - whether they're technically gods or not is largely a formality compared to what they're capable of as D&D antagonists.

[Thurbane]

To be honest, the quoted text from ToM should be treated more as fluff than crunch.

Many modules/adventures/locations have features or effects that are not directly replicable under RAW: using this quote as a RAW citation can only lead to headaches.

[Scots Dragon]

To be honest, the quoted text from ToM should be treated more as fluff than crunch.

Many modules/adventures/locations have features or effects that are not directly replicable under RAW: using this quote as a RAW citation can only lead to headaches.

Seriously. I miss when DMs could just kinda, y'know, say that they've got an enslaved balor and say that they managed to use some kind of unique circumstance or phase of the moon or what have you because the villains didn't bloody well need for their abilities to be perfectly reproduced by the PCs.

[Zakerst]

Look at it's list of duties.
The contract probably looked something like: stay in this location (boundaries), torture and extract information from (some definition of people that doesn't include the caster), shall all "facts" (the definition might very but we will just go with true beliefs based on your interrogation), don't destroy the area you are in. [Task] for 500 years [duration].
The negotiation part probably went along the lines of "you enjoy torturing people, and being outside of the abyss, so I'm offering you the chance to do that for 500 years, and considering your immortal that's not that long really..." with the possibility of offering other things as well, for example a steady supply of victims reducing the balor's work, maybe letting it use it's wish ability mostly as it desires, the list goes on. At the end of the day the balor could just be stuck in a planar binding loop where because of the nature of the original contract it has to accept the next planer binding for X castings that just so happens to total 500 years.
Likewise it may be prudent to note that while it isn't able to directly attack the lich it is able to activly betray him, so any players wishing to replicate these events may find themselves dragged down more than helped by their balor's services. E.g. I learned they had skin, they had eyes... (for a full list of mundane facts about the person they were interrogating, before sharing anything useful)
Another possible explanation might be the lich used the sacrifice rules and wished for a special planer binding for a balor for 500 years. Sounds like something a powerful demon might grant sending a rival or upstart off to the prime material to be a slave for a while.

[Hackulator]

Seriously. I miss when DMs could just kinda, y'know, say that they've got an enslaved balor and say that they managed to use some kind of unique circumstance or phase of the moon or what have you because the villains didn't bloody well need for their abilities to be perfectly reproduced by the PCs.

Me and everyone I game with does this when we DM all the time.

[Malimar]

Me and everyone I game with does this when we DM all the time.

When I do this, I usually blame it on "ancient forgotten techniques". (Lotta stuff gets lost in a 500-year global flood!)

[Hackulator]

When I do this, I usually blame it on "ancient forgotten techniques". (Lotta stuff gets lost in a 500-year global flood!)

In the current 3.5 game I play in we all work for a traveling interdimensional carnival run by a Leshay. Every wagon is its own demiplane. There are PILES of **** no PC could realistically create. Nobody cares, its lots of fun.

[RoboEmperor]

Seriously. I miss when DMs could just kinda, y'know, say that they've got an enslaved balor and say that they managed to use some kind of unique circumstance or phase of the moon or what have you because the villains didn't bloody well need for their abilities to be perfectly reproduced by the PCs.

Everything villains do should be replicable by PCs. Why shouldn't PCs be able to enslave balors while other villains can? Some PCs want to be as strong as the villains, but if the DM slams them down saying you gotta be a weakling forever, then... that's like saying you can only play mundanes while the villains get to be wizards.

[Manyasone]

Everything villains do should be replicable by PCs. Why shouldn't PCs be able to enslave balors while other villains can? Some PCs want to be as strong as the villains, but if the DM slams them down saying you gotta be a weakling forever, then... that's like saying you can only play mundanes while the villains get to be wizards.

That is complete BS, friend, fantasy literature is rife with villains who have magic that is not replicated by the heroes. Sauron's one ring, for example. Or the Lord Ruler in the Mistborn trilogy

[Wraith]

I don't think that's necessarily true of D&D, as you should never invite someone to play a game and then tell them that they can't play how or what they want to under any circumstances.

At the very least, everything a villain can do should be doable by a player.... with the caveat of "only when you hit the necessary requirements". Then you're giving them something to investigate and work towards, while at the same time the GM can keep control of their game by making those requirements specific, obscure and difficult to obtain - at least, until the players reach a point where success is appropriate to the game.

Am I suggesting that a PC should be able to create the One Ring at some point? Sure they can.... when they've reached level 40 Necromancer and are prepared to deal with the Armies of Men, Dwarfs and Elves who sally forth to stop them. Oh look - adventure hook! :smallbiggrin:

[DeTess]

That is complete BS, friend, fantasy literature is rife with villains who have magic that is not replicated by the heroes. Sauron's one ring, for example. Or the Lord Ruler in the Mistborn trilogy

I'ts not that I disagree with the overall point, but it is possible to replicate what the Lord Ruler is and can do (you might need about 32 sacrifices if you want to do it the quick and simple way, though), and the most recent book in the series hints that someone has managed to do so, at least in part.

[Manyasone]

I'ts not that I disagree with the overall point, but it is possible to replicate what the Lord Ruler is and can do (you might need about 32 sacrifices if you want to do it the quick and simple way, though), and the most recent book in the series hints that someone has managed to do so, at least in part.
I only have read the original three so far.. No spoilers ☺

[Thurbane]

I don't think that's necessarily true of D&D, as you should never invite someone to play a game and then tell them that they can't play how or what they want to under any circumstances.

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/8f/8fc1ca3c719455b43670ca7dd37387a25605baf19b094da17b 305685cd0f02ca.jpg

...also, I think we're drawing a long bow here: saying that not allowing PCs to have open ended Planar Bindings because of one piece of (primarily fluff) text is saying "You must be a weakling forever". :smallamused:

[Necroticplague]

Personally, I prefer all abilities being theoretically replicable. Adds more versimilitude to the word. Even a gods actions can be replicated if you have the right divine ability.

And in this case, it didn't say the planar binding was upon the Balor itself. It could have Bound its boss, then convinced it to offer the service of this balor open-endedely. It's not directly under the magic of a Planar Binding, it's just bound in his service by order of higher-ups (and the things ballots have as higher-ups are not the kinds of things one disobeys lightly). Explains why he's chafing under the rules, he's been forced into a reassignment to Antarctica.

[RoboEmperor]

[IMG]...also, I think we're drawing a long bow here: saying that not allowing PCs to have open ended Planar Bindings because of one piece of (primarily fluff) text is saying "You must be a weakling forever". :smallamused:

I wasn't talking about this case specifically, i was talking more in a broader sense. If a human BBEG of the campaign created a massive army of undead and almost took over the world, why can't the PC do that? Why can't he copy and improve the BBEG's methods and do the same thing? Because the BBEG is a naturally born genius with magical power unique to him and only to him so that even if you completely dissect him using epic-level-divinations you can't replicate it? That's malarky. That's like saying the world is filled with the gifted and weaklings, and you will forever be a weakling no matter how hard you try because you weren't born gifted. The PCs should not attempt to make an undead army out of moral reasons not because of permanently unattainable lack of ability.

It's like saying "Only NPCs get to cast planar binding", or "Only NPCs get animate dead", or "Only NPCs gets access to Homebrew Create Undead that places the undead permanently under their control." because... they're gifted and you're not >.>

This is one of the main reasons I play 3.5. Eventually, you can become the strongest entity in the universe, eventually.

Obviously in this scenario there was some special leverage to extort such a lengthy service from the Balor, but the important point here is "Serve me as a loyal slave for 10 days" is not an open-ended command. There was some ambiguity about whether adding a set duration for a task made it no longer open ended or not and I believe we have a good example that says it does. It doesn't however change the fact that any request that takes longer than 1day/CL is unreasonable and is up to DM's judgement.

[Psyren]

...also, I think we're drawing a long bow here: saying that not allowing PCs to have open ended Planar Bindings because of one piece of (primarily fluff) text is saying "You must be a weakling forever". :smallamused:

A very long bow indeed, but that tends to be endemic around here. "I'm going to say no to this particular interaction, which appears extremely atypical for PCs anyway" often equates in these discussions to toys being flung far and wide out of the pram and the GM accused of being an unmitigated tyrant.


I wasn't talking about this case specifically, i was talking more in a broader sense. If a human BBEG of the campaign created a massive army of undead and almost took over the world, why can't the PC do that? Why can't he copy and improve the BBEG's methods and do the same thing? Because the BBEG is a naturally born genius with magical power unique to him and only to him so that even if you completely dissect him using epic-level-divinations you can't replicate it? That's malarky. That's like saying the world is filled with the gifted and weaklings, and you will forever be a weakling no matter how hard you try because you weren't born gifted. The PCs should not attempt to make an undead army out of moral reasons not because of permanently unattainable lack of ability.

What if the BBEG did this by, say, letting himself be subsumed by the avatar of an evil god, effectively becoming an NPC (which he is already)? Would you still want your PC to use that same method?

[RoboEmperor]

What if the BBEG did this by, say, letting himself be subsumed by the avatar of an evil god, effectively becoming an NPC (which he is already)? Would you still want your PC to use that same method?

Fluff like this is better than "because he can and you can't because DM says so." The fact that the player can do this but chooses not to in order to keep their individuality is vastly different than because "The BBEG is a magically gifted mutant freak of nature with ungodly powers that you can never copy." Ultimately the result is the same, the PC doesn't get this power, but it's the little details like this that change it from "DM's BS" to "Ok"

[Wraith]

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/8f/8fc1ca3c719455b43670ca7dd37387a25605baf19b094da17b 305685cd0f02ca.jpg

Okay, sure; I'll qualify that; never at an open game. If you're running a very concise and specific setting, fair enough - you can limit whatever you want and I genuinely hope that you enjoy the atmosphere that you've created.
Most D&D I play, however, is never that subscribed and if I'm told "play whatever you want" then I kind of expect to be able to do that. :smallsmile:

[Thurbane]

Most D&D I play, however, is never that subscribed and if I'm told "play whatever you want" then I kind of expect to be able to do that. :smallsmile:

Thats is definitely a reasonable attitude. :smallwink:

[Dagroth]

Why can't the PCs do what the Evil BBEG NPC's do?

Because they're the heroes.

Heroes don't make endless armies of undead to rule the land.

Heroes don't bind Balors to torture their prisoners for information.

[Manyasone]

Why can't the PCs do what the Evil BBEG NPC's do?

Because they're the heroes.

Heroes don't make endless armies of undead to rule the land.

Heroes don't bind Balors to torture their prisoners for information.

Welllllll...yes and no. I prefer a Machiavellist approach in most of my characters. It's part of my personality that seeps in them. I've had words with my DM over it too.
"You're the heroes!" "Well yes, but that doesn't mean we have to be idiots about it..."

[Necroticplague]

Why can't the PCs do what the Evil BBEG NPC's do?

Because they're the heroes.

Heroes don't make endless armies of undead to rule the land.

Heroes don't bind Balors to torture their prisoners for information.

Why are the pcs necessarily the heroes? I see no reason a story about a cabal of BBEGs as PCs couldn't work.

[RoboEmperor]

Why are the pcs necessarily the heroes? I see no reason a story about a cabal of BBEGs as PCs couldn't work.

This guy, this guy knows how to have fun :)

[Thurbane]

Neither answer is right or wrong, just different styles of game. NPC/BBEG that can have effects or abilities that aren't directly replicable by equivalent PCs is just as valid as as a game where PCs can replicate everything an equivalent NPC/BBEG can do.

I know it can a bit of a culture shock in these days of the n-word ("no") being an unutterable abomination on the lips of a DM, but there is no default "right" or "wrong" way to play D&D. So long as the DM isn't a jerk about it, and everyone is clear on the ground rules up front, saying to a PC that he can't pull off the exact same tricks as the BBEG is fine.

If a player feels this is a horrible restriction he can't work with, they can vote with their feet.

The key here is the DM not being a jerk. If the DM declares "The NPC 6th Level Warrior leader clicks his fingers and a dozen Balors appear and attack, automatically winning Initiative" or something similar, he is clearly being a jerk.

[herceg]

That is complete BS, friend, fantasy literature is rife with villains who have magic that is not replicated by the heroes.

Replicated OR replicable? Difference.

[Dagroth]

Why are the pcs necessarily the heroes? I see no reason a story about a cabal of BBEGs as PCs couldn't work.

I've played in games where the PCs aren't heroes... where the PCs were straight up villains.

There are reasons why I'm not allowed to play Telepaths or Necromancers any more.

[Mordaedil]

Maybe the careful wording was made at a time when the NPC was still mortal and the deal was something along the lines of "serve me until my final days" and whatever goodie the NPC offered, possibly including his soul and the balor had checked how long the NPC would live, agreed to it and then immediately regretted it as the end of his life was not also his final day, leading to the service being far extended beyond the inital agreement, but he was still bound.

[Necroticplague]

Maybe the careful wording was made at a time when the NPC was still mortal and the deal was something along the lines of "serve me until my final days" and whatever goodie the NPC offered, possibly including his soul and the balor had checked how long the NPC would live, agreed to it and then immediately regretted it as the end of his life was not also his final day, leading to the service being far extended beyond the inital agreement, but he was still bound.


Except that any variation of 'serve me until X' is open-ended, and thus rubs up against the day/cl limit. So, even under incredibly high optimization (Circle Magic with every relevant CL booster you can find), short of TO and Epic Spell abuse, that only gives a month or two of service.

[Psyren]

Why are the pcs necessarily the heroes? I see no reason a story about a cabal of BBEGs as PCs couldn't work.

It certainly can, but I would never walk into a game expecting that to be the default assumption. For me, the baseline assumption would be that the bad guys can do things the protagonists can't do, or at the very least aren't willing to do (Xykon comes to mind.) I would be expected to be told up front that this IS a "be-anything" kind of game, and if I'm not told that, assume there are boundaries in place even if I haven't run into them face-first yet.

[Nifft]

Why can't the PCs do what the Evil BBEG NPC's do?

Because they're the heroes.

Heroes don't make endless armies of undead to rule the land.

Heroes don't bind Balors to torture their prisoners for information.


Why are the pcs necessarily the heroes? I see no reason a story about a cabal of BBEGs as PCs couldn't work.

There are some mechanics that rob you of your agency.

Madness rules, for example, can end with the character becoming an NPC -- not "turning evil", because the PC might have already been evil, but rather losing agency and becoming an NPC.

There have been Star Wars games where falling too deep into the Dark Side turned you into an NPC.

Maybe a mechanic like that is responsible for the Balor's current predicament.

Then you can have your players learn about the Ritual of Eternal Binding, which costs something that in-setting turns them into NPCs.

[danielxcutter]

Not just a lich - THE lich. This is Vecna we're talking about, D&D's ultimate Villain Stu, he probably has Balors doing his laundry.

Can I sig this?

Also, on topic, I think that DM's can fiat a bit, as long as they don't go overboard and they've at least come up with a good reason. This seems like one of those examples, though of course we are talking about one of the biggest of Big Bad Evil Villains D&D has.