Conjure X and Planar Binding

[No brains]

I recently asked this in the Simple RAW thread, but it seems to be more complex than I had thought.


Q 255 If someone summons several elementals or fey with one of the Conjure spells and another person affects just one of the creatures with Planar Binding, do the other creatures stay for the extended duration of the spell?

Now Planar Binding is only supposed to affect one creature, and according to the wording of the spell, it still only binds one creature to the caster's will. My question comes from the fact that Planar Binding specifies that it is the spell that summons the creature gets an extended duration. Technically this means that if you summon 8 pixies with Conjure Woodland Beings, one pixie may be bound to another spellcaster, but the remaining seven can still be commanded by their original summoner for additional time, possibly without concentration.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

[clash]

Seems like a RAW exploit. I would take a guess that RAI is the it only extends the duration for the creature bound.

[Unoriginal]

I recently asked this in the Simple RAW thread, but it seems to be more complex than I had thought.



Now Planar Binding is only supposed to affect one creature, and according to the wording of the spell, it still only binds one creature to the caster's will. My question comes from the fact that Planar Binding specifies that it is the spell that summons the creature gets an extended duration. Technically this means that if you summon 8 pixies with Conjure Woodland Beings, one pixie may be bound to another spellcaster, but the remaining seven can still be commanded by their original summoner for additional time, possibly without concentration.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

Planar Binding only affect one creature, so the conjuration spell would only be extended for said creature and not the other ones, even if they were summoned by the same spell.

[hymer]

I agree with what's been said, though I also agree that the wording is unfortunate. I expect the clause is to keep rules interaction with said conjured minion the same. If you could command it freely before, you still can. If you needed to do something special to deal with it, you still do. So if you use Conjure Fey to get a mammoth, and bind it to you, it's still a fey creature in a mammoth form, and it still follows your orders in the same way.

[SharkForce]

RAW, the creatures all break free when you stop concentrating on conjure X and start concentrating on planar binding.

given we're already looking at some RAI just for the spell to function, i consider RAW on the matter to be even less important than usual.

[No brains]

I agree with what's been said, though I also agree that the wording is unfortunate. I expect the clause is to keep rules interaction with said conjured minion the same. If you could command it freely before, you still can. If you needed to do something special to deal with it, you still do. So if you use Conjure Fey to get a mammoth, and bind it to you, it's still a fey creature in a mammoth form, and it still follows your orders in the same way.

Another weird thing about the RAW of Conjure Fey: even if you extend the duration of the spell, the fey still disappears after 1 hour. By the RAW wording of the spell, it is impossible to extend.


RAW, the creatures all break free when you stop concentrating on conjure X and start concentrating on planar binding.

given we're already looking at some RAI just for the spell to function, i consider RAW on the matter to be even less important than usual.

Teamwork and/or Glyph of Warding can get around concentration caveats.

[SharkForce]

Another weird thing about the RAW of Conjure Fey: even if you extend the duration of the spell, the fey still disappears after 1 hour. By the RAW wording of the spell, it is impossible to extend.



Teamwork and/or Glyph of Warding can get around concentration caveats.

both of those lead to screwy situations as well.

teamwork means that you have one person extending the other's control via conjure <thing>, at the same time as they become able to control it themselves through the planar binding.

glyph of warding means the glyph takes the place of the other person, and the creature has one master (the glyph) telling it to stick around and kill stuff that comes into the area, and the other trying to get it to do other things.

the only uses of planar binding that don't pretty much require some DM intervention to figure out how it's supposed to work are to use it on a creature that was not under anyone's control (as in, find a random fiend, celestial, fey, or elemental that wasn't conjured or similar), restrain it (this step is technically optional, but highly recommended since most targets won't just sit next to you peacefully for an hour while you cast planar binding), and then use planar binding... or cast planar binding through wish on a target, which you may or may not have conjured (but conjured or otherwise made friendly with a spell is highly recommended, because by default planar binding is likely to make the target try to twist your commands, and that will almost always end up poorly for you eventually).

well, that and spell gems. they really should have thought about it more when they made those things.

[Vaz]

That's not how Glyph of Warding works though. You still cast the spell. The Glyph doesn't. It just maintains concentration and takes effect as if you cast you it, except with the limitations and changes as noted within GoW.

[SharkForce]

That's not how Glyph of Warding works though. You still cast the spell. The Glyph doesn't. It just maintains concentration and takes effect as if you cast you it, except with the limitations and changes as noted within GoW.

when the glyph is triggered, there is no requirement for you to be around. the glyph casts the spell. you can tell, because range, LOS, and everything else are determined by the glyph. if the glyph fails, the spell fails. you don't need to concentrate on the spell, the glyph does, because the glyph is what did the casting, you just stored it. you don't choose the target, the glyph does, based on how you told it to choose targets, because the glyph is what casts the spell.

or, alternately, you still need to concentrate, since you are the one that did the casting, and you cannot concentrate on more than one spell at a time (the spell in the glyph would still last, of course, because it always lasts until the spell ends), but you wouldn't be able to concentrate on any other spell, including the planar binding you are attempting), because the glyphed spell is forcing your concentration on it. glyph doesn't remove the concentration requirement, after all, it merely states that the spell keeps going.

[Vaz]

No. The glyph triggers the spell, and the spell is stored. You still cast the spell.

I mean, you're fre to houserule it as such, but that's not what it says.

[SharkForce]

No. The glyph triggers the spell, and the spell is stored. You still cast the spell.

I mean, you're fre to houserule it as such, but that's not what it says.

if you were the caster, you'd be able to control it. but you can't. you can't cancel it, you can't make it target someone else, you can't change the password (if any). if someone was to cut your head off, that would have zero impact on the spell. you are not the caster. if for some reason the glyph was to target you (perhaps someone made you look like an orc), you would have no more control over the spell than anyone or anything else, except the glyph which has some minor control.

either the glyph is casting the spell, or some other undefined thing is casting the spell, or nothing is casting the spell. of those options, the glyph makes the most sense, because it is what controls the spell. it decides when to cast and who to target, and if it is somehow destroyed the spell will not be cast at all.

[Vaz]

Prove it. Because you're house ruling.

[SharkForce]

Prove it. Because you're house ruling.

i've provided my proof. the glyph controls the spell. the person who created the glyph does not. range is calculated from the glyph, not the person who created it. there is no action cost for the person who created the glyph. we don't have any specific indication that the glyph spends an action, but at the very least we don't know for certain that it doesn't, which is more than we can say for the person who created the glyph. the targets are selected by the glyph, not by the person who created the glyph. the person who created the glyph could die and the spell in the glyph would remain, but if you destroy the glyph, the spell inside is gone.

now you provide your proof that the person who created the glyph is the caster.

[ThePolarBear]

[...]
glyph of warding means the glyph takes the place of the other person, and the creature has one master (the glyph) telling it to stick around and kill stuff that comes into the area, and the other trying to get it to do other things.[...]

From "Glyph of Warding":

"[...]You can store a prepared spell of 3rd levei or lower in the glyph by casting it as part of creating the glyph. [...] The spell being stored has no immediate effect when cast in this way. When the glyph is triggered, the stored spell is cast [...]"

The caster of "Glyph of Warding" is also the caster for the spell being inscribed. The activation of the effects is simply delayed.
In regards to "what do the creatures do" the glyph spell description does tell us what happens to the summoned creatures when the glyph s triggered, but that's not because the glyph is "the master". It's simply because specific rule beats general rule - creatures summoned this way behave like that. Not even the original caster could, imho, change the fact with another command. At least until the "triggerer" ceases to exist.

[SharkForce]

From "Glyph of Warding":

"[...]You can store a prepared spell of 3rd levei or lower in the glyph by casting it as part of creating the glyph. [...] The spell being stored has no immediate effect when cast in this way. When the glyph is triggered, the stored spell is cast [...]"

The caster of "Glyph of Warding" is also the caster for the spell being inscribed. The activation of the effects is simply delayed.
In regards to "what do the creatures do" the glyph spell description does tell us what happens to the summoned creatures when the glyph s triggered, but that's not because the glyph is "the master". It's simply because specific rule beats general rule - creatures summoned this way behave like that. Not even the original caster could, imho, change the fact with another command. At least until the "triggerer" ceases to exist.

or, alternately, casting the spell to charge the glyph doesn't make you the caster when the rune casts the glyph.

one interpretation fits the facts. the other does not. if you were the caster, you should be in control of the spell. it's range should be determined from you. you should choose the targets as well. if you are in an anti-magic field, the spell should be unable to trigger. if you are incapacitated, the spell should not be possible to cast. you would need to expend the action.

none of this points to you being the caster. in fact, all of it points to you *not* being the caster, and in fact, none of those facts are specific vs general because the glyph of warding doesn't specify all those things, so there *is* no specific.

instead, all of those things are true for the glyph. the facts fit with the glyph being the caster (or, worst case, do not disprove the glyph from being the caster), just like if you put a spell into a ring of spell storing and someone else used it. you may have been the caster when the spell was stored. but you are not the caster when the spell is used.

[ThePolarBear]

or, alternately, casting the spell to charge the glyph doesn't make you the caster when the rune casts the glyph.

I suppose you meant "the glyph casts the spell".

Which is like saying that building a bed does not make you the builder of said bed. The caster did cast the spell. The fact that said spell has no immidiate effect is not important. There is not a single istance on Glyph of Warding stating that the glyph casts it and the only part that does not refer directly to the original caster casting the spell is left impersonal - no mention of the glyph doing nothing else of being triggered.



one interpretation fits the facts. the other does not. if you were the caster, you should be in control of the spell. it's range should be determined from you. you should choose the targets as well. if you are in an anti-magic field, the spell should be unable to trigger. if you are incapacitated, the spell should not be possible to cast. you would need to expend the action.

If it were a normal spellcasting, following normal rules, you would be right. However 5e rules follow a simple "Specific overrides generic" and Glyph of Warding offers specific changes to how spellcasting handles. Those specific changes make all your argument irrelevant.
Antimagic field? The spellcaster is not casting the spell again, so there's no interaction here unless the glyph itself is inside of the antimagic field. Spells that a caster has already cast and are outside of the field do not magically disappear or cease to have effect once the caster is inside an antimagic field to begin with.


none of this points to you being the caster.

"[...]You can store a prepared spell of 3rd levei or lower in the glyph by casting it as part of creating the glyph. [...]" does, and it's part of Glyph of Warding. Nothing form that point on changes that sentence.


in fact, all of it points to you *not* being the caster, and in fact, none of those facts are specific vs general because the glyph of warding doesn't specify all those things, so there *is* no specific.

If there were no specific, the one originally casting the spell is still the caster. There would be no changes in how spellcasting is handled, therefore there would be no basis to assume or even think for moment that the glyph could be the caster. It would be irrational and unbased to do so.


instead, all of those things are true for the glyph. the facts fit with the glyph being the caster (or, worst case, do not disprove the glyph from being the caster), just like if you put a spell into a ring of spell storing and someone else used it. you may have been the caster when the spell was stored. but you are not the caster when the spell is used.

There is no need to disprove anything. 5e is an exception based system (specific over general). Where there is no specific, general applies. Specific however is there, in the part i quoted before.
The ring of spell storing is another specific over general case that is, in fact, different from glyph of warding and should not be treated as equal, albeit it is similar:
Ring of spell storing does say that the creature wearing the ring does cast the spell contained into the ring itself, making that creature the caster - as explicitly stated in the item description.
However, it also explicitly states that there are difing characteristics applied to the spell that stem from the original caster.
Such text is not in the Glyph of Warding.

[Vaz]

i've provided my proof. the glyph controls the spell. the person who created the glyph does not. range is calculated from the glyph, not the person who created it. there is no action cost for the person who created the glyph. we don't have any specific indication that the glyph spends an action, but at the very least we don't know for certain that it doesn't, which is more than we can say for the person who created the glyph. the targets are selected by the glyph, not by the person who created the glyph. the person who created the glyph could die and the spell in the glyph would remain, but if you destroy the glyph, the spell inside is gone.

now you provide your proof that the person who created the glyph is the caster.
😂 😂 😂

Okay mate, sit down

[tenshiakodo]

This is a similar situation to the Ring of Spell Storing.

A spellcaster can cast a spell into the ring (direct quote: "any creature can cast a spell of 1st through 5th level by touching the ring as the spell is cast"). It uses their spell attack bonus and save DC when you use the ring, because that is set when the spell was cast.

HOWEVER, when you use the ring, you cast the spell (direct quote: "while wearing the ring you can cast any spell stored in it"). If it has concentration, you are the one who is concentrating on the spell.

So in this instance, the spell technically has two casters. The original caster, and the current one.

[Vaz]

This is a similar situation to the Ring of Spell Storing.

A spellcaster can cast a spell into the ring (direct quote: "any creature can cast a spell of 1st through 5th level by touching the ring as the spell is cast"). It uses their spell attack bonus and save DC when you use the ring, because that is set when the spell was cast.

HOWEVER, when you use the ring, you cast the spell (direct quote: "while wearing the ring you can cast any spell stored in it"). If it has concentration, you are the one who is concentrating on the spell.

So in this instance, the spell technically has two casters. The original caster, and the current one.

No. The spell only has 1 caster. The first time it's cast into the ring, there is only one caster, and the time that the Attuned user casts the spell stored within the ring, it uses the Slot Level, DC, Attack Bonus, and Spellcasting Ability of the original caster but is otherwise treated as if you cast the spell.

There are no "two casters", there is the caster of the original spell, and the caster of the stored spell.

[tenshiakodo]

Wait. So if Wizard A casts fireball into a Ring of Spell Storing, and Fighter B casts fireball out of the ring, you're saying that the same spell wasn't cast twice? I mean, literally, the word cast is used in both cases for the same spell.

How does that not mean there were two casters of the spell?

[Vaz]

The spell is stored, which is what determines the spell being cast by the Fighter, with reference to the abilities of the original caster. You're not casting the same spell, however.

[SharkForce]

I suppose you meant "the glyph casts the spell".

Which is like saying that building a bed does not make you the builder of said bed. The caster did cast the spell. The fact that said spell has no immidiate effect is not important. There is not a single istance on Glyph of Warding stating that the glyph casts it and the only part that does not refer directly to the original caster casting the spell is left impersonal - no mention of the glyph doing nothing else of being triggered.



If it were a normal spellcasting, following normal rules, you would be right. However 5e rules follow a simple "Specific overrides generic" and Glyph of Warding offers specific changes to how spellcasting handles. Those specific changes make all your argument irrelevant.
Antimagic field? The spellcaster is not casting the spell again, so there's no interaction here unless the glyph itself is inside of the antimagic field. Spells that a caster has already cast and are outside of the field do not magically disappear or cease to have effect once the caster is inside an antimagic field to begin with.



"[...]You can store a prepared spell of 3rd levei or lower in the glyph by casting it as part of creating the glyph. [...]" does, and it's part of Glyph of Warding. Nothing form that point on changes that sentence.



If there were no specific, the one originally casting the spell is still the caster. There would be no changes in how spellcasting is handled, therefore there would be no basis to assume or even think for moment that the glyph could be the caster. It would be irrational and unbased to do so.



There is no need to disprove anything. 5e is an exception based system (specific over general). Where there is no specific, general applies. Specific however is there, in the part i quoted before.
The ring of spell storing is another specific over general case that is, in fact, different from glyph of warding and should not be treated as equal, albeit it is similar:
Ring of spell storing does say that the creature wearing the ring does cast the spell contained into the ring itself, making that creature the caster - as explicitly stated in the item description.
However, it also explicitly states that there are difing characteristics applied to the spell that stem from the original caster.
Such text is not in the Glyph of Warding.

- i never said they weren't the caster of the spell at the time they put it into the glyph. that doesn't mean they're automatically the caster when the glyph casts the spell, especially since none of the things that would happen when you cast the spell match up with the original glyph-maker being the caster of the stored spell apart from when they store it in the glyph. while storing the spell, the glyph-maker is the caster of the stored spell; the caster chooses the target (into the glyph's storage matrix or whatever it is), spends the actions required for the spell, etc. after that point, those things cease to be true.

- if specific overrides general, then in the absence of specific rules specifying otherwise (which we've established to be the case), the glyph-maker would be the point of origin for the spell, must expend any actions required to cast the spell, and so forth. the only specific rule is that the spell will last the full duration no matter what. so we're forced to presume *something* got left out (or that the spell was intended to be completely non-functional in it's intended use). either they forgot to specifically mention that the glyph is the caster of the spell when the glyph is triggered, or they forgot to mention the entire list of specific rules that would be required to make the glyph function the way it is described to function. it makes more sense that they forgot one thing than it does that they would forgot a large list of things, particularly if they simply consider triggering the glyph to be another way of saying the glyph is casting the spell.

- yep, the glyph-maker was definitely the caster when the spell was stored. but that doesn't say they're the caster when the glyph is triggered. and, as noted, there would need to be a large list of rules-changes to make the glyph function if the glyph-maker is supposed to still be the caster at the time the glyph is triggered.

[Vaz]

The game works on a "same, unless modified". It is why Metamagic works in the way it does, and Dragon Sorcerer etc. The bits that are modified are the bits that are modified.

The bit where the spell stored in the glyph is triggered (nothing states the glyph casts the stored spell) means that unless modified (because specific>general), it stays the same. The glyph maintains concentration, and sets a condition and targeting restrictions.

[ThePolarBear]

- i never said they weren't the caster of the spell at the time they put it into the glyph. that doesn't mean they're automatically the caster when the glyph casts the spell,

Can you point where in the text or in anything RAI does someone or something say that the glyph casts the spell? I've provided quotes of the text where, at most, the casting is left impersonal. There is no where that i could find that says that "the glyph casts the spell" or any variation thereof. If you agree that unless specific happens, general applies, then the glyph does not, in fact, cast anything.


especially since none of the things that would happen when you cast the spell match up with the original glyph-maker being the caster of the stored spell apart from when they store it in the glyph.

And? Specific overrides general. The specifics of the spell are changed by the more specific rules of how glyph interacts with stored spells and how those spells have to be handled. This means nothing in determining who is casting a spell. A Dragon sorcerer does not lose the "propriety" of his spells just because an ability of his adds +cha damage to some elemental spells, even if those spells are changed by that ability.


while storing the spell, the glyph-maker is the caster of the stored spell; the caster chooses the target (into the glyph's storage matrix or whatever it is), spends the actions required for the spell, etc. after that point, those things cease to be true.

The caster does not chose the target. The caster does nothing but casting the spell, in fact. The fact that there are no immediate effects or that a specifc effect alters normal spellcasting does nothing to change who the caster of the spell is unless there is some text or decision from a DM to say otherwise. Your DM might still say whatever, but the text does NOT change who the caster of the spell is when the glyph is triggered. Nothing changes this, so no, it does not cease to be true. See the ring of spell storing you mentioned to see a different text that actually does what you thing glyph does.


- if specific overrides general, then in the absence of specific rules specifying otherwise (which we've established to be the case), the glyph-maker would be the point of origin for the spell, must expend any actions required to cast the spell, and so forth. the only specific rule is that the spell will last the full duration no matter what. so we're forced to presume *something* got left out (or that the spell was intended to be completely non-functional in it's intended use). either they forgot to specifically mention that the glyph is the caster of the spell when the glyph is triggered, or they forgot to mention the entire list of specific rules that would be required to make the glyph function the way it is described to function. it makes more sense that they forgot one thing than it does that they would forgot a large list of things, particularly if they simply consider triggering the glyph to be another way of saying the glyph is casting the spell.

Action: The spell has already been cast. It is simply stored/suspended. The action has already been taken.
Point of origin: The spell is stored in a place that's no longer the caster. It is in the glyph. It would be against common sense to thing that something that is on the floor actually originates from somewhere that is not on the floor - unless explicitly stated otherwise.

To Vaz: Concentration - no the glyph does not mantain concentration. The duration of the spell is simply changed from "concentration - x" to simply "x".

The glyph does nothing but contain a spell that was cast in it to trigger with specific changes to targeting, origin and duration. The glyph does nothing but trigger.


- yep, the glyph-maker was definitely the caster when the spell was stored. but that doesn't say they're the caster when the glyph is triggered. and, as noted, there would need to be a large list of rules-changes to make the glyph function if the glyph-maker is supposed to still be the caster at the time the glyph is triggered.

Again, the bedmaker was the bedmaker, but it's not when the bed is at my home because the bed was in a truck, and when the truck reached my home and got unloaded the unloading somehow became made it the bedmaker?
During the travel the bed might be damaged and not reach my house as it was at first. It changed, somewhat. But it is still made by the bedmaker.

There is nothing that says that the glyph becomes the caster. Nothing, not even logic or common sense. You can repeat your opinion ad nauseam, but have not provided anything but your word and conflicting logic for it - even if you think otherwise.

Glyph of Warding can be used as a spell container to suspend activation of a spell cast when the glyph is inscribed for delayed effect, with specific changes to targeting and duration. And that's it.

[SharkForce]

Can you point where in the text or in anything RAI does someone or something say that the glyph casts the spell? I've provided quotes of the text where, at most, the casting is left impersonal. There is no where that i could find that says that "the glyph casts the spell" or any variation thereof. If you agree that unless specific happens, general applies, then the glyph does not, in fact, cast anything.


you mean like all the ways that the spell functions like the glyph is casting it and the glyph-maker is not? the fact that the only thing missing from the "glpyh is the caster" side of the argument being an explicit statement that the glyph is the caster, while the glyph-maker being the caster requires a ton of rules text that is not present detailing all the ways the stored spell differs from usual?



And? Specific overrides general. The specifics of the spell are changed by the more specific rules of how glyph interacts with stored spells and how those spells have to be handled. This means nothing in determining who is casting a spell. A Dragon sorcerer does not lose the "propriety" of his spells just because an ability of his adds +cha damage to some elemental spells, even if those spells are changed by that ability.

what specific rules are you talking about? where does it say that the usual rules for casting a spell in the PHB are not followed? there is no specific text to that effect. if we're going with "it doesn't specifically say the glyph-maker is not the caster", then the usual rules must apply. the spell doesn't say the caster doesn't need to see the target, or that range is not calculated from the caster, etc, so they must all apply still.


The caster does not chose the target. The caster does nothing but casting the spell, in fact. The fact that there are no immediate effects or that a specifc effect alters normal spellcasting does nothing to change who the caster of the spell is unless there is some text or decision from a DM to say otherwise. Your DM might still say whatever, but the text does NOT change who the caster of the spell is when the glyph is triggered. Nothing changes this, so no, it does not cease to be true. See the ring of spell storing you mentioned to see a different text that actually does what you thing glyph does.

it's right in the PHB. the section just before the spell lists. the caster does a whole bunch of stuff. if the caster is not changed, or a whole bunch of specific rules are not given, the caster must still do those things


Action: The spell has already been cast. It is simply stored/suspended. The action has already been taken.
Point of origin: The spell is stored in a place that's no longer the caster. It is in the glyph. It would be against common sense to thing that something that is on the floor actually originates from somewhere that is not on the floor - unless explicitly stated otherwise.

sorry, absent a specific rule change, general rule applies. it does not say that the spell works differently, so it doesn't.


To Vaz: Concentration - no the glyph does not mantain concentration. The duration of the spell is simply changed from "concentration - x" to simply "x".

not quite true. the spell just lasts for the full duration regardless (a strict reading could actually suggest that, since the duration line includes concentration, the spell would even still require concentration if it did before and would fail if it didn't... a spell that has lasted for as long as you concentrate has technically lasted for the full duration, since the spell has concentration in the text line). planar binding changes a summoning spell's duration line. glyph of warding just says the spell lasts for the full duration (which most people interpret as meaning the spell does not require concentration).


The glyph does nothing but contain a spell that was cast in it to trigger with specific changes to targeting, origin and duration. The glyph does nothing but trigger.

there are no specific changes to the spell's origin. nor are there specific changes to a lot of other things about the spell. like the requirement that the caster can see the target for many spells, among other things.


Again, the bedmaker was the bedmaker, but it's not when the bed is at my home because the bed was in a truck, and when the truck reached my home and got unloaded the unloading somehow became made it the bedmaker?
During the travel the bed might be damaged and not reach my house as it was at first. It changed, somewhat. But it is still made by the bedmaker.

you can use bad analogies if you want. it doesn't make them applicable to the situation. the bed doesn't go back to being its component parts when the bedmaker is finished making it, but a spell placed into a glyph does; if you put a fireball spell into a glyph, it isn't a fireball yet, it's stuff that can turn into a fireball.


There is nothing that says that the glyph becomes the caster. Nothing, not even logic or common sense. You can repeat your opinion ad nauseam, but have not provided anything but your word and conflicting logic for it - even if you think otherwise.

Glyph of Warding can be used as a spell container to suspend activation of a spell cast when the glyph is inscribed for delayed effect, with specific changes to targeting and duration. And that's it.

and no changes to anything else that is part of the process of casting a spell, since there's no specific to override general, which will make the great majority of spells unable to function.

which means we're forced to assume they left something out in order for the spell to function at all. either they intended the glyph triggering to mean the glyph is the caster, or they intended to make a whole bunch of changes to how a spell works that they never mentioned.

of course, this is all still fairly irrelevant to the original topic, because no matter how you slice it the caster has no control over a glyph-triggered spell either way, so it's still two conflicting control spells.

[No brains]

We're going a hundred kilometers per hour into a dead end by talking about Glyph of Warding. A discussion on that should probably be in its own thread at this point.

Ignoring the strategy that might not work, the problem of teamwork can be solved with... further cooperation. Planar Binding doesn't specify any action for commanding a creature and Conjure X specifies that commanding the creature takes no action. That means it's entirely possible for both commanders to agree on a course of action or for one to defer to another. Since the commanded creature is specified to be friendly, it will likely be amicable to at least one arrangement. Players acting like antisocial boneheads can ruin a game without needing to read 5th level spells anyway, so failure to cooperate at this point isn't really a weakness in the strategy.

Also if Planar Binding extends the duration of the spell that conjured creatures other than the one that is bound, nothing in Planar Binding specifies granted command over those creatures, so the Conjurer would still command those with only up to friendly suggestions from the Binder. Only one creature could have a potential custody kerfuffle.

That's my point on the thread's topic. Thank you to hymer, Unoriginal, and clash for your succint input. Again, if there's an argument to be had over Planar Binding working weird, it should be had somewhere else at this point. It's not answering my question.

[ThePolarBear]

you mean like all the ways that the spell functions like the glyph is casting it and the glyph-maker is not?

No. I mean where there is something written, raw or rai, that "the glyph is the caster". The fact that the spell acts like it was cast in the place where the glyph is (as it actually WAS) still does not make the glyph the spellcaster.


the fact that the only thing missing from the "glpyh is the caster" side of the argument being an explicit statement that the glyph is the caster, while the glyph-maker being the caster requires a ton of rules text that is not present detailing all the ways the stored spell differs from usual?

There's no ton of rules required. No more and no less than if the glyph was actually the caster.


what specific rules are you talking about? where does it say that the usual rules for casting a spell in the PHB are not followed? there is no specific text to that effect. if we're going with "it doesn't specifically say the glyph-maker is not the caster", then the usual rules must apply. the spell doesn't say the caster doesn't need to see the target, or that range is not calculated from the caster, etc, so they must all apply still.

Yes. The spell was cast there. So? The effect is suspended. It resumes as if it was cast there (as it was) when the glyph is triggered.



it's right in the PHB. the section just before the spell lists. the caster does a whole bunch of stuff. if the caster is not changed, or a whole bunch of specific rules are not given, the caster must still do those things

Which were done during the casting of Glyph of Warding.



sorry, absent a specific rule change, general rule applies. it does not say that the spell works differently, so it doesn't.

Exactly.


not quite true. the spell just lasts for the full duration regardless (a strict reading could actually suggest that, since the duration line includes concentration, the spell would even still require concentration if it did before and would fail if it didn't... a spell that has lasted for as long as you concentrate has technically lasted for the full duration, since the spell has concentration in the text line). planar binding changes a summoning spell's duration line. glyph of warding just says the spell lasts for the full duration (which most people interpret as meaning the spell does not require concentration).

Concentration IS a duration. The new duration does not include concentration and simply lasts the full duration.



there are no specific changes to the spell's origin. nor are there specific changes to a lot of other things about the spell. like the requirement that the caster can see the target for many spells, among other things.

Yes. And common sense is actually RAW. By the way, it's RAI that you can actually cast a "creature only" spell targeting an object. The spell simply does not have effect.



you can use bad analogies if you want. it doesn't make them applicable to the situation. the bed doesn't go back to being its component parts when the bedmaker is finished making it, but a spell placed into a glyph does; if you put a fireball spell into a glyph, it isn't a fireball yet, it's stuff that can turn into a fireball.

Where does it say that the spell goes back to be component parts? All i see is a container (truck) that contains something (spell) that gets released (delivery).
For the idonotknowwhattimeisit: the spell has been cast. The bed has been created. Now, we are at a company creating furniture that has to be assembled after delivery instead of being assembled before. The situation does not change: I'm still not the one that created the bed, the truck is still not the one that created the bed. I'm simply assembling it.


and no changes to anything else that is part of the process of casting a spell, since there's no specific to override general, which will make the great majority of spells unable to function.

Which is why RAW requires common sense. And common sense is RAW.


which means we're forced to assume they left something out in order for the spell to function at all. either they intended the glyph triggering to mean the glyph is the caster, or they intended to make a whole bunch of changes to how a spell works that they never mentioned.

Or they simply intended that the spell was cast - as written - and the spell simply takes effect with the changes listed when the trigger happens. You know, what common sense actually should tell you instead of ruling that a magical effect is actually able to cast spells with no rule actually stating it does - like for example simulacrum. Which, actually, requires ZERO rules to be changed. Simply common sense to be applied.


of course, this is all still fairly irrelevant to the original topic, because no matter how you slice it the caster has no control over a glyph-triggered spell either way, so it's still two conflicting control spells.

Which is why i did not reply to that post - that has all the reasons to exist, since raw states exactly what the post writes about - but yours, that had some problems. And yes, i think this has gone too far as an interference. That's why i've put other answers in spoilers and i will refrain to further derail the thread.