Saying Yes to Planar Binding...

[smetzger]

So, I've recently changed my stance on Planar Binding mostly due to this thread...
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?573043-Planar-Binding-is-SLAVERY&highlight=planar+binding

I _mostly_ agree with what RoboEmperor is saying. However, I would like to place some reasonable limits.

Some ideas I had...

1) No way to avoid rolling the d20 with a potential of rolling a 1.

2) Limit it to 1 day/lvl.
- anything over 1 day /lvl is an unreasonable demand
- no commanding creature to go back into the circle at some point in its servitude. This again is an unreasonable command.

3) Limit it to 1 creature at a time
- This is very weak from a RAW perspective. Could make some excuse up that 2nd creature called is from a separate faction and thus the two would consider it an unreasonable command to serve the same master.

4) The more often you use planar binding the more outsiders will have you on their list for revenge and therefore more likely that it will happen.

5) If you bind the creature to serve you for a certain number of days and then during that time you make an unreasonable command the creature will not obey it and you need to make another opposed charisma check. This one is fairly obvious but should be spelled out for the player.

6) Above should be clearly communicated to the player. Character should know this from Spellcraft or Knowledge Planes.

On the plus side the character should become known as 'woah your that guy who bound that outsider, crazy...'

Ideas? Thoughts?
Did I nerf it or did I say yes with reasonable conditions?

[Crake]

1) No way to avoid rolling the d20 with a potential of rolling a 1.

There are spells to avoid this (see surge of fortune)


2) Limit it to 1 day/lvl.
- anything over 1 day /lvl is an unreasonable demand
- no commanding creature to go back into the circle at some point in its servitude. This again is an unreasonable command.

This makes some of the more reasonable uses of planar binding suddenly not usable. Ordering a fiend to perform a good deed of equal proportion to each evil deed he's ever committed for example no longer becomes an option.


3) Limit it to 1 creature at a time
- This is very weak from a RAW perspective. Could make some excuse up that 2nd creature called is from a separate faction and thus the two would consider it an unreasonable command to serve the same master.

This one seems reasonable, as you could say the toll of keeping the bound creature in check weighs down on your ego, though again, it removes the capability of fire and forget planar bindings like the one above.


4) The more often you use planar binding the more outsiders will have you on their list for revenge and therefore more likely that it will happen.

This is just to be expected.


5) If you bind the creature to serve you for a certain number of days and then during that time you make an unreasonable command the creature will not obey it and you need to make another opposed charisma check. This one is fairly obvious but should be spelled out for the player.

Binding the creature to serve your absolute orders would be considered an unreasonable command in the first place, since you could order it to commit suicide and it would have to follow through. Come up with a better initial binding clause.


6) Above should be clearly communicated to the player. Character should know this from Spellcraft or Knowledge Planes.

Personally I think that if they have access to the spell, they should know how it works, but at the same time, just because they know how it works, doesn't mean they're infallible. People seem to think that since they have 30 int, they're suddenly invulnerable to being duped or something. Have the player outline his binding clause, and let the fiend come up with a loophole of their choosing.

[Psyren]

5) If you bind the creature to serve you for a certain number of days and then during that time you make an unreasonable command the creature will not obey it and you need to make another opposed charisma check. This one is fairly obvious but should be spelled out for the player.

6) Above should be clearly communicated to the player. Character should know this from Spellcraft or Knowledge Planes.

Yeah, definitely don't do (5) without (6). And on the subject of (6), don't be afraid to hint to players (or let them roll) to get some ideas for the kinds of commands that might work with a given outsider - IF of course PB is a reasonable course of action for their situation, and they're not just whipping it out like a rubber mallet for every problem they come across that could be handled just fine by them on their own.


Ordering a fiend to perform a good deed of equal proportion to each evil deed he's ever committed for example no longer becomes an option.

That sounds pretty unreasonable to a fiend if you ask me, no less than commanding an angel to commit atrocities would be. An Aeon/Rilmani would probably just shrug.

[Hackulator]

4) The more often you use planar binding the more outsiders will have you on their list for revenge and therefore more likely that it will happen.

This is just to be expected.

You might think that but a lot of people on this board seem to think if the DM hits you with the vengeance clause in the spell it's bullcrap an the DM is a jerk.

[Tvtyrant]

You might think that but a lot of people on this board seem to think if the DM hits you with the vengeance clause in the spell it's bullcrap an the DM is a jerk.

It is particularly funny in light of the Great Wheel cosmology, where all of these creatures have jobs given to them by powerful bosses. Binding a Balor means one of the top enforcers for a Demon Lord just got kidnapped and enslaved, you can be sure if they get murdered or reused too often a group of Mariliths in fedoras and trench coats will show up.

"Mr. Demogorgon is very disappointed in you."

[Cosi]

I think the best quick fix is to limit creatures to CR 6/9/12, limit people to one minion at a time, and have the spell take its slot as long as the minion is active rather than having a duration. You should mostly ignore the stuff about bargaining and vengeance, because the positive effect it has on balance is much lower than the negative effect it has on overall game experience.


This is very weak from a RAW perspective. Could make some excuse up that 2nd creature called is from a separate faction and thus the two would consider it an unreasonable command to serve the same master.

The spell is completely goddamn broken from a RAW perspective. Rather than trying to shoehorn everything you want under increasingly contrived readings of "unreasonable command", you should just change the spell.


The more often you use planar binding the more outsiders will have you on their list for revenge and therefore more likely that it will happen.

The "revenge" angle people put forward as a cap on the spell doesn't do very much in practice. The thing to remember is that the party are adventurers. They're supposed to expect that monsters will periodically try to murder them. The fact that this monster is doing it because it thought the Wizard was a particularly bad employer rather than because they are invading its lair is really just window dressing, and insofar as it matters at all, it increases the degree to which planar binding warps the game around the Wizard. That's not to say you can't do anything with it, but it should be viewed more as a world-building element than a tool for balancing planar binding.


You might think that but a lot of people on this board seem to think if the DM hits you with the vengeance clause in the spell it's bullcrap an the DM is a jerk.

That's because it's very easy for it to become jerk behavior. Hitting the party with a TPK worth of vengeful demons because you weren't willing to just change the spell is jerk behavior.

[Eldariel]

All you need to do to fix the whole chain of spells is to remove the Charisma-check. There are spells to compel a fiend into obedience (Dominate Monster, Geas, etc.). There are skill checks to bargain for profit. There's literally no need for the spell to enable you to control the subject or force them to order the task. The spell does more than enough by binding the creature (as per name) and making them essentially powerless in front of you. It's a Conjuration, not an Enchantment. No Charisma-check on Planar Binding, no "short service" clause on Gate and both of the spells do exactly what their literary predecessors with few problems, while still being immensely powerful, flavourful, and useful.

[Psyren]

All you need to do to fix the whole chain of spells is to remove the Charisma-check. There are spells to compel a fiend into obedience (Dominate Monster, Geas, etc.). There are skill checks to bargain for profit. There's literally no need for the spell to enable you to control the subject or force them to order the task. The spell does more than enough by binding the creature (as per name) and making them essentially powerless in front of you. It's a Conjuration, not an Enchantment. No Charisma-check on Planar Binding, no "short service" clause on Gate and both of the spells do exactly what their literary predecessors with few problems, while still being immensely powerful, flavourful, and useful.

I agree, but the issue (and the reason the Cha check existed in the first place) becomes that you need to fix the face skills too. Almost anything you forcibly bind is going to be Hostile or at least Unfriendly, and swinging that to Helpful is next to impossible (DC 40-50) without employing cheese of some kind. Not that that shouldn't be difficult to do, but it helps the GM not have to worry about messing around with the skills system, so I think there's a middle ground that could be found.

[Hackulator]

That's because it's very easy for it to become jerk behavior. Hitting the party with a TPK worth of vengeful demons because you weren't willing to just change the spell is jerk behavior.

While "hitting the party with a TPK full of demons" in almost any situation is a jerk move, if you you excessively abuse a spell that in it's description says "this spell is dangerous" and "the creatures may seek revenge" and then get mad when your chickens come home to roost you're the one who is a jerk. That's basically saying "hey my character's actions shouldn't have consequences". Of course there's a level of reasonable response, figuring out what that is is the DMs job.

[Blackhawk748]

You might think that but a lot of people on this board seem to think if the DM hits you with the vengeance clause in the spell it's bullcrap an the DM is a jerk.

As others have said, it's because it can easily turn into that. I mean, for instance, let's say I summon a Hound Archon to help my party through the dungeon of a Lich that is summoning Demons to the plane. Why would he want revenge on us? We're helping him do what he wants to do. Yes I summoned him in a rude way, but how else do you call them up?

In short, context is important

[Calthropstu]

Planar binding is dangerous. I allow it in my games, but no one has been stupid enough to abuse it the way playgrounders seem to think it should be.

[Hackulator]

As others have said, it's because it can easily turn into that. I mean, for instance, let's say I summon a Hound Archon to help my party through the dungeon of a Lich that is summoning Demons to the plane. Why would he want revenge on us? We're helping him do what he wants to do. Yes I summoned him in a rude way, but how else do you call them up?

In short, context is important

I dunno, maybe because he's a good outsider who is not just sitting on his ass waiting to be summoned all day. Maybe he was in the middle of his own quest and you just got his buddies murdered by making him disappear mid fight. There are a lot of reasons why teleporting someone without their permission somewhere so you can temporarily enslave them might make them want to get revenge on you even if they are good and even if they approve of what you are doing.

[Blackhawk748]

I dunno, maybe because he's a good outsider who is not just sitting on his ass waiting to be summoned all day. Maybe he was in the middle of his own quest and you just got his buddies murdered by making him disappear mid fight. There are a lot of reasons why teleporting someone without their permission somewhere so you can temporarily enslave them might make them want to get revenge on you even if they are good and even if they approve of what you are doing.

That's a jerk move by the DM. When summoning, unless I know their name, I'm not specifying who I summon. So why would the God's let me summon one of their vassals who is currently busy, instead of one who's off fishing or something? If that happened, and there isn't a random chart involved, that's the DM being a passive aggressive jerk, because the player is trying to summon things that want to do what they're asking and minimize or eliminate the risk all together, and they just decided to say "Screw you"

[Hackulator]

That's a jerk move by the DM. When summoning, unless I know their name, I'm not specifying who I summon. So why would the God's let me summon one of their vassals who is currently busy, instead of one who's off fishing or something? If that happened, and there isn't a random chart involved, that's the DM being a passive aggressive jerk, because the player is trying to summon things that want to do what they're asking and minimize or eliminate the risk all together, and they just decided to say "Screw you"

"Why did the God's not make sure when I randomly summoned one of their minions I randomly summoned one who was safe to summon?" You're an arcane caster snatching one of their minions, not a cleric with permission. Expecting the "Gods" to make sure that works out right is just asking for protection by DM fiat.

If you do it rarely, I'm probably not going to have anything go wrong. If you are constantly summoning random Hound Archons (or any other good outsider) eventually you are going to grab ones who are in the middle of important stuff.


Creatures who are barely intelligent and cannot planar travel? As Cosi and I demonstrated in the other thread, the chances of them appearing before you again is absolutely astronomical so them pulling a revenge is in fact BS unless some greater scope villain intentionally recruits them to kill the PCs.

Dude you didn't demonstrate anything you said "I think this".

[Crake]

That's a jerk move by the DM. When summoning, unless I know their name, I'm not specifying who I summon. So why would the God's let me summon one of their vassals who is currently busy, instead of one who's off fishing or something? If that happened, and there isn't a random chart involved, that's the DM being a passive aggressive jerk, because the player is trying to summon things that want to do what they're asking and minimize or eliminate the risk all together, and they just decided to say "Screw you"

That's planar ally, not planar binding. Planar binding literally plonks a random being of the type you specify, and hell, it doesn't even specify average, so you may well get one with class levels or advanced HD (up to the HD limit of the spell you're using of course). Let's be honest, what kind of hound archon is just sitting around twiddling their thumbs? I think you're far more likely to summon one that's busy than not. If you want to summon an angel without pissing it off, get a name ahead of time, sending them, and arrange a time to summon them, that's what the players in my game do, after the first few times they tried to summon an angel only to have it yell "Send me back! Quickly! People are in trouble!" only to have the wizard panic and quickly dismiss them.

[Hackulator]

Let me dumb it down for you. If someone in China in the middle ages wants to kill someone in America, and he is incapable of buying/building a ship let alone sailing it, and has no connection to any information agencies, what are the chances of him coming to America and finding that exact guy?

If it was one dude, almost certainly not. If every day another dude was added to the list, eventually you'd be in trouble. Also I'd appreciate if we didn't devolve into the realm of passive-aggressive insults.

[liquidformat]

3) Limit it to 1 creature at a time
- This is very weak from a RAW perspective. Could make some excuse up that 2nd creature called is from a separate faction and thus the two would consider it an unreasonable command to serve the same master.

This rubs me the wrong way and I think this is a bad way to go about balancing planar binding. Why not instead do like Cosi said and have that spell slot be taken up by said binding spell until the creature is sent back. This provides a hard limit on how many times you can use the spell and adds a real detractor to abusing the spell. It makes it a question of resources and what said bound creature is worth.


Devils should most likely always perform revenge. They have cults. They are organized. They are intelligent. Hunting down the PCs once freed is within their power and they are vindictive and evil enough to do this, always. The vengeance however, will not involve creatures more powerful than the victim. So if a Barbed Devil was seeking revenge, a Pit Fiend won't help the barbed devil because of how the Devil's society/culture/hierarchy is designed. So any allies the Barbed Devil brings to his revenge attack will only involve things weaker than him, his minions.
I think you are missing some key aspects to Devils claiming they should never have anyone supporting them besides their minions. Devils are greedy, spiteful, vengeful, and intelligent; because of that there are plenty of reasons that it wouldn't just be said devil returning by itself. Here are a few reasonable examples.
- Previously bound devil returns with other similarly cr'ed devils that it is either holding something over and there by forcing to help or has offered compensation enough to attract the help of.
- Boss of previously bound devil comes looking for compensation for the 'perceived' value lost by you kidnapping its minion.


That's a jerk move by the DM. When summoning, unless I know their name, I'm not specifying who I summon. So why would the God's let me summon one of their vassals
who is currently busy, instead of one who's off fishing or something? If that happened, and there isn't a random chart involved, that's the DM being a passive aggressive jerk, because the player is trying to summon things that want to do what they're asking and minimize or eliminate the risk all together, and they just decided to say "Screw you"

Having a chart of Initial Attitude to roll against seems like a great addition to the spell. One clarification is that being an outsider doesn't automatically make them a minion of a god. It just means they live on a certain plane....

Also like already stated since this isn't planar ally, and you are just randomly kidnapping an outsider offending a god because you just kidnapped his minion he sent out on an important quest is actually a valid result of planar binding, though it may be an extreme result...

[tyckspoon]

Having a chart of Initial Attitude to roll against seems like a great addition to the spell. One clarification is that being an outsider doesn't automatically make them a minion of a god. It just means they live on a certain plane....


No, being an Angel does that. It's specifically what they exist for. There would be a lot less argument about it if people were Planar Binding random templated Outsider animals or elementals; Demons, Devils, and Angels just happen to both be much more effective minions to Bind and either have or are associated with creatures that have the intelligence and powers to possibly do something about it if they don't like you.

[liquidformat]

If the DM wants to roleplay devils differently then it's completely within their right. So I would not object to any DM doing anything you said.

But if we go solely by pure d&d, if you read FCII Devils you'd know that devils have no friends. They are all opportunists that try to get other devils demoted, even their own minions. It directly says devils demote their minions and promote others on a whim. If a minion got enslaved and failed to take revenge the boss would view the minion as a failure and demote him and promote someone else to replace him. Failure to corrupt your enslaver is a sign of the devil's incompetence and is unworthy of his current form.

If a devil came back with friends instead of slaves/minions, I'd find that suspect but w.e, DMs are free to change the fluff of his monsters so I would have no right to say he's playing d&d wrong. But if you bound multiple devils and they all decided to work together to kill you, that's another story entirely and totally reasonable. Devils coordinate and calculate, but they never help each other.

I have read FCII and I don't think anything I said in anyway goes against their description of devils and their society. Yes devils do not have friend and are always looking for opportunities to rise and opportunities to stab their fellow devils in the back. Bribing another devil to help you achieve some goal seems like standard practice for them as does using any other means available to force a devil into helping you.
Similarly I didn't say the bound devil comes only that its greedy master might come to try and get some form of compensation out of you for your actions. That also seems very much inline with devil behavior. You (the wizard) have taken something from it that it views to have some perceived value, it would wish for compensation at least equal to that perceived value.

[liquidformat]

That's not how Faustian pacts work, which seems like the only type of deals Devils make. It'd make sense if the Devil warns the PC that if he wants to use his minions he needs to make a pact with him first, and then kill the PC if he binds one of his minions again without making a pact, but demanding compensation without an agreement is illegal for devils i believe.

Will have to relook over FCII I thought that was a reasonable reading of devil society, but it has been a while since I last looked at that book.


I guess this makes sense. So yes to similar CR but no to boss vengeance imo, and only if the devil isn't a pit fiend or someone who faces humiliation for asking help from his peers.


Ya depends on how high up the totem pole you go, also how low Lemures are mindless after all but why someone would be binding one?... no clue.

On a side note devils with class levels has always confused me due to the way their promotion and demotion system is supposed to work.

[Eldariel]

I agree, but the issue (and the reason the Cha check existed in the first place) becomes that you need to fix the face skills too. Almost anything you forcibly bind is going to be Hostile or at least Unfriendly, and swinging that to Helpful is next to impossible (DC 40-50) without employing cheese of some kind. Not that that shouldn't be difficult to do, but it helps the GM not have to worry about messing around with the skills system, so I think there's a middle ground that could be found.

A combination of spells like Charm & al. combined with skills should work. It's not like you need for them to be Helpful to help you while coerced; they'd just be more likely to betray you if you show weakness (which is pretty fitting). Though yes, the social skills (and the skill system boosters such as Glibness) should be fixed in general regardless; there's just too much variety.

[Tvtyrant]

That's not how Faustian pacts work, which seems like the only type of deals Devils make. It'd make sense if the Devil warns the PC that if he wants to use his minions he needs to make a pact with him first, and then kill the PC if he binds one of his minions again without making a pact, but demanding compensation without an agreement is illegal for devils i believe.



I guess this makes sense. So yes to similar CR but no to boss vengeance imo, and only if the devil isn't a pit fiend or someone who faces humiliation for asking help from his peers.

Taking a Devil from its master takes away from its power, which is its sole purpose in existing. It probably won't move directly, as it has other plots to attend to, but it will likely hire someone (an Inevitable, Daemon, Rakshasa, etc) to do the revenging for it.

If it is a Pit Fiend the big boss is going to be pissed, those are indispensable in the Blood War and are limited in number (being fallen angels.) So taking a Pit Fiend is likely to spark some counter-attacks, like a rival trying to kill it while it is busy under your control, or its underlings who need it to defeat a battalion of Demons and will be executed if they lose.

[liquidformat]

Does it really though? There's essentially an infinite amount of devils like lemures, and it is effortless for a devil to promote a lemure into whatever he needs and traveling to the material plane is a huge bother so I doubt it. I think he'll just demote the bound devil when he returns without his enslaver's soul.

Sure that holds true for the lemure and imp and so on but like Tvtyrant pointed out you hit a point where things aren't that straightforward. Certainly by the time a pit fiend has been planar bound it won't be business as usual. Especially if the master takes a major loss because one of its main minions was kidnapped in the middle of an important mission.

[liquidformat]

Pit Fiend is the boss so if you bind a Pit Fiend it's an all out war between you and the Pit Fiend.

Pit Fiend's boss? If there is one, I doubt an Archdevil like Bel is gonna blame a mortal for a Pit Fiend's incompetence especially since the other pit fiends are gonna frame the issue that way to eliminate a competitor in the Baator politics.

Anyways this is just my interpretation. Devils are quick to demote and don't give a damn whether one of their own dies or gets enslaved or not, and especially does not view mortals as anything other than rats so losing to a rat makes the devil look bad and puts the blame on him and not the mortal. If a DM gets a different interpretation, that's fine. But IMO pure d&d it's gonna be a cold day in Baator (other than Cania) before a Devil's boss makes a vengeful entrance. But as you pointed out, I think a non-vengeful but a deal-making entrance is totally possible and reasonable and that could lead to a combat encounter with the Pit Fiend if the mortals aren't careful.

Ya I would agree, I was thinking of a deal making type of encounter, not a 'you stole my minion so I am here to crush you'. Sorry if that didn't come across.

[Tvtyrant]

Pit Fiend is the boss so if you bind a Pit Fiend it's an all out war between you and the Pit Fiend.

Pit Fiend's boss? If there is one, I doubt an Archdevil like Bel is gonna blame a mortal for a Pit Fiend's incompetence especially since the other pit fiends are gonna frame the issue that way to eliminate a competitor in the Baator politics.

Anyways this is just my interpretation. Devils are quick to demote and don't give a damn whether one of their own dies or gets enslaved or not, and especially does not view mortals as anything other than rats so losing to a rat makes the devil look bad and puts the blame on him and not the mortal. If a DM gets a different interpretation, that's fine. But IMO pure d&d it's gonna be a cold day in Baator (other than Cania) before a Devil's boss makes a vengeful entrance. But as you pointed out, I think a non-vengeful but a deal-making entrance is totally possible and reasonable and that could lead to a combat encounter with the Pit Fiend if the mortals aren't careful.
This is specifically in response to guides like Treantmonk's where they suggest mind control or torture to force good bargains with captured outsiders. If you are fair bargaining it is different, but Billy the Murderous Malconvoker who kills his binds after he is done so they can't get revenge is going to piss off or scare the hierarchy.

Imagine being Bel and finding out Pit Fiends are being used up by a Malconvoker, who soon will be able to bind and murder him.

That is on top of other outsiders who have less infinite power than Devils; like I said, demon lords are going to get pissed if you start stealing their pawns.

[Blackhawk748]

This is specifically in response to guides like Treantmonk's where they suggest mind control or torture to force good bargains with captured outsiders. If you are fair bargaining it is different, but Billy the Murderous Malconvoker who kills his binds after he is done so they can't get revenge is going to piss off or scare the hierarchy.

Imagine being Bel and finding out Pit Fiends are being used up by a Malconvoker, who soon will be able to bind and murder him.

That is on top of other outsiders who have less infinite power than Devils; like I said, demon lords are going to get pissed if you start stealing their pawns.

I mean, if I'm that Malconvoker, why do I care? I'm using evil things to kill evil things then disposing of the evil thing when I'm done. Sounds like a job well done to me considering what a Malconvoker is

[smetzger]

Planar binding is dangerous. I allow it in my games, but no one has been stupid enough to abuse it the way playgrounders seem to think it should be.

But by RAW it is not that dangerous. There are ways to avoid the natural 1 which means there is no chance the creature can escape and wreak havoc on you. You can bind them indefinitely, so no chance for revenge. And if you chose certain creature types there is virtually no chance that there is going to be a strike force sent against you.

Since you think it should be dangerous and not abused. What guidelines do you use in order to prevent that?

[Tvtyrant]

I mean, if I'm that Malconvoker, why do I care? I'm using evil things to kill evil things then disposing of the evil thing when I'm done. Sounds like a job well done to me considering what a Malconvoker is

Right, but any creature you can do this to is going to become worried about their own safety if you are doing it regularly. A high level Malconvoker can murder a number of unique cosmic entities (like Jubilex.)

@roboemperor If devils and demons worked that way the Blood War and the inter-fiend wars wouldn't exist. Infinite Outsiders doesn't make them less valuable, it means there are infinite tasks for them to do.

I doubt Asmodean is content for Devils to sit around doing nothing, all of them have quotas to fill and if someone goes missing they go unfilled.

Demogorgon is at war with itself, allied with itself and has schemes to create churches across an infinite material plane. All of his servants are running around doing things, and middle management is going to notice when someone suddenly fails to seduce enough priests with promise of insane power.

Essentially my argument is that the Great Wheel isn't static, it is just balanced. All of the sides are actively fighting for control, and they notice if their side loses a peg.

[Maat Mons]

If we're talking about house rules to fix planar binding, I have a suggestion.

I don't think Planar Binding should be just one spell. What I mean is, it's doing two different things. It's bringing a (potentially unwilling) creature to you. And it's binding that creature into your service. It should be two spells. One spell to bring the creature to you. One spell to bind it.

Also, the binding to your service half of things should probably be Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting].

[SLOTHRPG95]

If we're talking about house rules to fix planar binding, I have a suggestion.

I don't think Planar Binding should be just one spell. What I mean is, it's doing two different things. It's bringing a (potentially unwilling) creature to you. And it's binding that creature into your service. It should be two spells. One spell to bring the creature to you. One spell to bind it.

Also, the binding to your service half of things should probably be Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting].

I mean, it's already de facto three separate spells, or at least two. You don't just cast Planar Binding by itself, you need an inward-facing Magic Circle against X, and often a Dimensional Anchor is also called for. So it doesn't seem to crazy to break off yet another part (the compelling service bit) and make that a different spell, or even a skill check if the caster so chooses.

[Eldariel]

I mean, it's already de facto three separate spells, or at least two. You don't just cast Planar Binding by itself, you need an inward-facing Magic Circle against X, and often a Dimensional Anchor is also called for. So it doesn't seem to crazy to break off yet another part (the compelling service bit) and make that a different spell, or even a skill check if the caster so chooses.

Again, it already exists as a number of enchantment spells (Charm Monster, Dominate Monster, Geas, etc.) so there needs to be no new spell; just remove the clearly-not-a-part-of-the-binding-spell-part.

[Maat Mons]

Again, it already exists as a number of enchantment spells (Charm Monster, Dominate Monster, Geas, etc.) so there needs to be no new spell; just remove the clearly-not-a-part-of-the-binding-spell-part.

You know, I read your post on my way through this thread. But I must have gotten distracted by arguments in later posts. Because by the time I got to the end of the thread, I legitimately thought that what I was writing was a brand new idea.

[Tvtyrant]

It was my impression that Asmodeus doesn't even give a damn when an Archdevil rises or falls.



The impression I got is that the bloodwar is like WH40K, so much wide-scale epic **** going on, especially since outside the bloodwar the Archdevils and Demon Princes are waging full scale wars on their own kin like Orcus sending an endless wave of undead to conquer Grazz't territory at a snail's pace instead of helping the bloodwar, no one is gonna even notice the disappearance of even Balors and Pit Fiends.
That isn't really how scale works though. You just add more chains of command, so if an operation fails the finger blaming will roll down until it hits the missing person. It is surprisingly hard to desert in wartime despite there being millions of soldiers due to the general not having to look, the immediate superior officer does.

So say you take a Balor whose job was to lead an offensive into Baator. His boss is a lesser demon lord who works for Orcus, who is trying to use the attack to flush out a spy who was giving information to Obox-Ob. Now the attack is abandoned due to lacking its commander, and Orcus sends some very angry messages to Demon Lord Pooky.

But if you stole a lesser demon like a Nalfeneesh its boss would still notice because it wouldn't be leading the force of Lemures on the right flank, which loses the battle whoch disrupts the offensive that got launched by the scheme that Orcus made.

[Arcanist]

I think Demon Lords have more infinite power than Devils. Demons outnumber Devils by a large, large margin. Forgot the exact number but it was like x8 to x12 more demons, and unlike Devils, they don't replenish their numbers via souls.

Demon Lords do not, at least on paper, have more power than say, an Archdevil. The Demon equivalent you might be looking for are the Demon Princes and Princess. This is why a Demon Lord with "infinite power" does not simply show up and end the Blood War. No one in the lower planes, at least officially, has "infinite power". That said! Demons are infinite in number, that is to say, you can put a single demon on a layer in the abyss and you'll end up with the same amount as if you were to put 100 on every layer in the abyss: infinite. The way that Devil's counteract this is through strategy, structure, and organization. Don't get me wrong, Devils might not necessarily like one another, but they are smart enough to identify a common threat that is thwarting their plans.



It was my impression that Asmodeus doesn't even give a damn when an Archdevil rises or falls.

Steve Easterbrook does not care what David the Frycook thinks, feels, or even wants to do with his life. He only cares that he does his job. He does not care about David's boss, or his boss' boss, or so on and so forth... He does not care, until the problem makes it's way up to David Fairhurst, Robert Gibbs, Jerry Krulewitch, Silvia Lagnado and so on and so forth. In this analogy Steve Easterbrook is Asmodeus and those other names? Are the Lords of the Nine, whose jobs it is to make everyone else do their jobs.

While Asmodeus has no interest in making sure David the Imp does his job, David's boss, and his boss' boss and so on and so forth have a vested interest in making sure David does his job and will go to great lengths to ensure that he keeps doing it, or replace him if absolutely necessary. The last bit is important: If you prove yourself to be more trouble than you're worth? Expect a hit squad. Otherwise, if you're on the down-lo about it, keep your head down, and try to not step on anyone and everyones toes? You'll be fine.

All of this out of the way, I imagine Pit Fiends (essentially upper management) would be extremely interested in why you decided to capture them for 500 years to make them your wish servant, their bosses would also like to chim in on this explanation as well.


The impression I got is that the bloodwar is like WH40K, so much wide-scale epic **** going on, especially since outside the bloodwar the Archdevils and Demon Princes are waging full scale wars on their own kin like Orcus sending an endless wave of undead to conquer Grazz't territory at a snail's pace instead of helping the bloodwar, no one is gonna even notice the disappearance of even Balors and Pit Fiends.

Demons are a sense strange once you get into the realm of Princes and Lords. The Realm of a Demon Lord is where you are most likely to find any semblance of order and structure. Comparing it to the Grimdark Future where there is only War isn't exactly inaccurate. The Blood Wars are very Grimdark in that no decent human being who understands anything about the organizations involved would want any party involved to actually win. However, even Demon's have some semblance of structure to them in that during a "Black Crusade", they might notice if one of their "Champions of Chaos" suddenly disappears out of the blue. Would they notice a lesser demon? Probably not after a while, but soon enough they might start asking where Ted from Mortal Relations is and have to send guys out to look for him. It won't exactly be a massive conspiricy planned out to assassinate you (as Devil's might very well do), but you can expect mortal servants of Chaos (some of whom might very well also be Spellcasters) to at the very least do the bidding of their masters. That said? I doubt very much Demons would care for their fellow Demon. They're infinite in supply, if one of your soldiers goes missing, go drag another one out of the field, give them a weapon, and tell them to charge that fortification or complain to the Commissar :smalltongue:

[Blackhawk748]

If we're talking about house rules to fix planar binding, I have a suggestion.

I don't think Planar Binding should be just one spell. What I mean is, it's doing two different things. It's bringing a (potentially unwilling) creature to you. And it's binding that creature into your service. It should be two spells. One spell to bring the creature to you. One spell to bind it.

Also, the binding to your service half of things should probably be Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting].

So now Spontaneous Casters arent allowd to use Planar Binding? Cuz thats what that does, cuz you also need other spells to do it and if you need that many spells Sorcerers will never be able to do it and they already don't want to.

[Selion]

Just a question, planar binding is more than a diplomacy check, if the check is successful the binded outsider is compelled to follow the contract.
While this seems pretty flavorful for a devil, it sounds odd if the summoned creature is a demon, which is an embodiment of chaos.
On a narrative perspective should a demon consider unreasonable any contract which binds him this way?

[Eldariel]

So now Spontaneous Casters arent allowd to use Planar Binding? Cuz thats what that does, cuz you also need other spells to do it and if you need that many spells Sorcerers will never be able to do it and they already don't want to.

The other spells are spells you want anyways (Magic Circle is a really good spell to know, Dimensional Anchor is far from worthless and you can substitute Dimensional Lock if desired, and Sorcerers have increased reason to want Charisma-utilising spells like Charm, Dominate, etc. anyways). And you can use Scrolls if you don't happen to know the particular spell off-hand. And spontaneous casters are already well-advised to expand their spell list with items. In short, I don't really see this being a problem at all. If a spontaneous casters wants to, they can easily use Planar Binding and Sorcs in particular have an edge already thanks to their Charisma.

[Jack_Simth]

The other spells are spells you want anyways (Magic Circle is a really good spell to know, Dimensional Anchor is far from worthless and you can substitute Dimensional Lock if desired, and Sorcerers have increased reason to want Charisma-utilising spells like Charm, Dominate, etc. anyways). And you can use Scrolls if you don't happen to know the particular spell off-hand. And spontaneous casters are already well-advised to expand their spell list with items. In short, I don't really see this being a problem at all. If a spontaneous casters wants to, they can easily use Planar Binding and Sorcs in particular have an edge already thanks to their Charisma.

Most things you'll be binding are not subject to Dominate Person, so you'll need Dominate Monster, which is 9th.
Charm Monster is 4th, but the control is... rather loose. Also, Charms give the target a +5 bonus to the save if the target is currently being "threatened"... which, you know, the trapped guy in the circle is probably feeling.
Geas works just fine, but it's a 6th level spell, has ten minutes of casting time, and has no Cha synergy. It's highly specialized, and I don't think I've ever seen a sorcerer take it.
Scrolls have minimum save DC's, and outsiders used the Good Will save progression (also Fort and Reflex).

That makes "splitting up" Planar Binding very painful for a Sorceror, and also annoying for a Wizard - Lesser Planar Binding is 5th, after all, and essentially requiring Geas to get the current functionality means it's not really doable until 6th level spells are in play.

[Gnaeus]

Honestly, Devils and angels are the least likely to seek revenge on an intelligent caster. You get them to agree not to, and being lawful in nature, they won’t break their words. Problem solved.

Although I think the revenge angle is pretty stupid for most planar bound creatures, especially if they are being called by a like aligned caster to do things that match their alignment and personality.

Back to OP,


3) Limit it to 1 creature at a time

We use a houserule that limits each player to one active long-term minion at a time. So if you use planar binding, your familiar will spend most of his time hiding in your pocket. You could use a second planar binding off screen (Mr. Hound Archon, please escort these escaped slaves back to a friendly settlement). Or you can use planar binding to secure minions for allies (Mr. Hound Archon, please protect Sir Reginald as we travel through the mines (in which case Sir Reginald takes functional control of the creature, so no one has too much spotlight time and no ones turns take an hour)). But you can’t just use all your slots on planar bindings for 3 days before you enter the pyramid and go in with 30 outsiders. If you have leadership, you can bring your cohort, or an outsider, your choice.

[noob]

Planar bind the demon then redeem as any normal person would do (polymorph the demon so that it lose its immunity to redeeming)?
Wait you excepted to use that spell to get specific things done?

[Eldariel]

Most things you'll be binding are not subject to Dominate Person, so you'll need Dominate Monster, which is 9th.
Charm Monster is 4th, but the control is... rather loose. Also, Charms give the target a +5 bonus to the save if the target is currently being "threatened"... which, you know, the trapped guy in the circle is probably feeling.
Geas works just fine, but it's a 6th level spell, has ten minutes of casting time, and has no Cha synergy. It's highly specialized, and I don't think I've ever seen a sorcerer take it.
Scrolls have minimum save DC's, and outsiders used the Good Will save progression (also Fort and Reflex).

That makes "splitting up" Planar Binding very painful for a Sorceror, and also annoying for a Wizard - Lesser Planar Binding is 5th, after all, and essentially requiring Geas to get the current functionality means it's not really doable until 6th level spells are in play.

That's the whole point: Planar Binding is ridiculous, because it gives you such complete control with such a low level spell when it'd normally take a 9th level spell and even then with some reservations. It shouldn't work like that. Level 5 spell shouldn't grant you permanent dominatedish minion of power level equal to your character level and with infinite repeatability and no cost. I believe we can agree on this? Besides, it's not even an enchantment; how the hell is it giving you said control in the first place? This change fixes the spell pretty completely (though Geas might require rethinking; the balanced level of control for Planar Binding to grant would be closer to Charm Monster than Dominate Monster), while also making it more sensible school and level-wise; in short, an all-around upside.

And seriously, who cares if Sorc is worse or better than a Wizard when we have a whole category of classes that's "brokenly OP if used as written" and this fixes one of the most egregious problems. Geas has no save so that isn't an issue for scrolls anyways. Whether Sorc has to go through a bit more trouble to use it but has better stats to use is a minor matter in comparison to what you gain. Sorc also has Bluff out of the gate and Diplomacy with some effort; it's not like you should easily be able to get complete control over a creature that powerful that easily.

[Calthropstu]

But by RAW it is not that dangerous. There are ways to avoid the natural 1 which means there is no chance the creature can escape and wreak havoc on you. You can bind them indefinitely, so no chance for revenge. And if you chose certain creature types there is virtually no chance that there is going to be a strike force sent against you.

Since you think it should be dangerous and not abused. What guidelines do you use in order to prevent that?

By RAW it is "GM adjudication." No way around it, the gm is free to interpret it however they like and massive amounts of leeway is given. Abusing PB is asking the G Mm "Can I break your game please?" You have to be prepared for the consequences.

Hell, I am literally running a campaign with this premise. Wizards stole millions of elementals, placed them into magic items en masse and now the elementals are attacking the prime material plane and destroying magic items to release their bretheren's souls and punish those responsible.

And I gave the elementals class levels.

So yeah. Dangerous.

[liquidformat]

Don't get me wrong, Devils might not necessarily like one another, but they are smart enough to identify a common threat that is thwarting their plans.

'Smart enough' has nothing to do with it, it is simply the nature of lawful vs chaos. Devils are by nature fixated on laws, order and since they are evil they scheme on how to use those laws and that order to get to the end result they want. Plans are simply a part of 'lawful' in the d&d verse.
On the other hand demons are simply chaos, any 'plan' they make is just an amalgamation of noise and chaos that once viewed from a macro scale mysteriously becomes a 'plan' with a seeming goal. I like to think of the comparison of what the human body does compared to each tiny molecule.



Steve Easterbrook does not care what David the Frycook thinks, feels, or even wants to do with his life. He only cares that he does his job. He does not care about David's boss, or his boss' boss, or so on and so forth... He does not care, until the problem makes it's way up to David Fairhurst, Robert Gibbs, Jerry Krulewitch, Silvia Lagnado and so on and so forth. In this analogy Steve Easterbrook is Asmodeus and those other names? Are the Lords of the Nine, whose jobs it is to make everyone else do their jobs.

While Asmodeus has no interest in making sure David the Imp does his job, David's boss, and his boss' boss and so on and so forth have a vested interest in making sure David does his job and will go to great lengths to ensure that he keeps doing it, or replace him if absolutely necessary. The last bit is important: If you prove yourself to be more trouble than you're worth? Expect a hit squad. Otherwise, if you're on the down-lo about it, keep your head down, and try to not step on anyone and everyones toes? You'll be fine.

All of this out of the way, I imagine Pit Fiends (essentially upper management) would be extremely interested in why you decided to capture them for 500 years to make them your wish servant, their bosses would also like to chim in on this explanation as well.

The way I look at it is more or less a matter of scale, sure someone above an imp in the hierarchy is going to notice that the imp disappeared and its task went uncompleted; however, in the end one imp, a few imps, even many imps going missing isn't really going to change much. In fact if the imp's boss fails its mission because of said imp disappearing the issue stops there because said boss has now be demoted to a lower form of devil.
Yet, as higher and higher devils go missing there is more of a chance that you as said pc binding these devils will draw the attention of the boss of one of your enslaved/borrowed devils not out of interest in said devil but for reparations do to the losses caused by you enslaving/borrowing said devil.

Now on the other hand when talking about demons you are more or less free to do what you want because of the nature of demons. However, also do to their chaotic nature a demon boss is inherently just as likely to come after you for stealing its subordinate as it is to not come after you for stealing its subordinate. So in a strange way any time you planar bind a demon you should technically have a 50% chance of the boss of said demon to come after you.

[Calthropstu]

'Smart enough' has nothing to do with it, it is simply the nature of lawful vs chaos. Devils are by nature fixated on laws, order and since they are evil they scheme on how to use those laws and that order to get to the end result they want. Plans are simply a part of 'lawful' in the d&d verse.
On the other hand demons are simply chaos, any 'plan' they make is just an amalgamation of noise and chaos that once viewed from a macro scale mysteriously becomes a 'plan' with a seeming goal. I like to think of the comparison of what the human body does compared to each tiny molecule.




The way I look at it is more or less a matter of scale, sure someone above an imp in the hierarchy is going to notice that the imp disappeared and its task went uncompleted; however, in the end one imp, a few imps, even many imps going missing isn't really going to change much. In fact if the imp's boss fails its mission because of said imp disappearing the issue stops there because said boss has now be demoted to a lower form of devil.
Yet, as higher and higher devils go missing there is more of a chance that you as said pc binding these devils will draw the attention of the boss of one of your enslaved/borrowed devils not out of interest in said devil but for reparations do to the losses caused by you enslaving/borrowing said devil.

Now on the other hand when talking about demons you are more or less free to do what you want because of the nature of demons. However, also do to their chaotic nature a demon boss is inherently just as likely to come after you for stealing its subordinate as it is to not come after you for stealing its subordinate. So in a strange way any time you planar bind a demon you should technically have a 50% chance of the boss of said demon to come after you.

In the case of devils, it's more likely to be an extremely devastating response. Perhaps even a concerted campaign.

For demons, it's a matter of fun, and reputation. Say a boss demon does decide to go after you. It's even more dangerous to destroy it. Because at that point "Killing the guy that destroyed a boss demon will make ME a boss demon." Then dozens of lesser demons start hounding the party trying to become big. Then another boss demon takes notice...

The arguments against being taken down for abusing powerful outsiders because "no one cares" is pure weak sauce.

[liquidformat]

You have very, very, very little leeway with Demons because the Fiendbinder PrC spells it out that Demons don't do vengeance and no boss comes to their rescue. It clearly states only demons who are repeatedly bound go for vengeance and those who have been only bound once don't seek vengeance out of fear of being bound again and nowhere in the PrC does it say a Demon Prince will visit you for binding too many creatures. The risk of abusing Demons is absolutely minimal.

ya that is why I said technically since you had mentioned that previously. Also I am not seeing where fiendbinder talks about that, can you point me to the page?

[Calthropstu]

You have very, very, very little leeway with Demons because the Fiendbinder PrC spells it out that Demons don't do vengeance and no boss comes to their rescue. It clearly states only demons who are repeatedly bound go for vengeance and those who have been only bound once don't seek vengeance out of fear of being bound again and nowhere in the PrC does it say a Demon Prince will visit you for binding too many creatures. The risk of abusing Demons is absolutely minimal.

It says no such thing.

[Arcanist]

Devils and Demons view mortals on the same level as rats so if an Archdevil gets enslaved by a mortal Asmodeus will pin the blame on the Archdevil and not the spellcaster.

Not exactly true. I used the corporate comparison for a reason, namely that Fiends view mortals the same way Corporations view their consumer base: They care so long as they choose to interact with them. While Asmodeus is likely to blame and probably "fire" the Archdevil, you can't seriously expect anyone to believe that he would just give the Spellcaster a slap on the wrist and say "Stay out of trouble"


Grazz't was enslaved by a female mortal for a looooooong while and no one came to his rescue.

Please do not ignore or leave out that the female mortal in question was Iggwilv because that is very important. Iggwilv was, according to lore at least, a very cunning, very powerful Witch. She spoke directly to imprisoned Demon Lords, she even participated in the binding of one long before she even summoned Grazz't, and when she DID eventually summon him, they actually ended up in a romantic relationship (or maybe she agreed to bare his son, who knows?). Simply put, the reason why no one came for Grazz't is because Grazz't did not consider himself in danger and therefore did not need rescuing.


'Smart enough' has nothing to do with it, it is simply the nature of lawful vs chaos.

Perhaps I should have simply said "they are organized enough to [...]" :smalltongue:



The way I look at it is more or less a matter of scale, sure someone above an imp in the hierarchy is going to notice that the imp disappeared and its task went uncompleted; however, in the end one imp, a few imps, even many imps going missing isn't really going to change much. In fact if the imp's boss fails its mission because of said imp disappearing the issue stops there because said boss has now be demoted to a lower form of devil.
Yet, as higher and higher devils go missing there is more of a chance that you as said pc binding these devils will draw the attention of the boss of one of your enslaved/borrowed devils not out of interest in said devil but for reparations do to the losses caused by you enslaving/borrowing said devil.

I personally think binding Devils is a much more organized, smoother, and (at least in the short term) safer endevour than summoning any other type of fiend. Will a Pit Fiend be a bit upset, or even scared that Mortal McWizardson decided to rip them away from potentially important business? Yes. Absolutely. But corrupting mortals is also apart of their job, and there is an in game mechanic for modifiers and penalties to your charisma check for what is considered "unreasonable" and "acceptable time limits" on Planar Binding in Fiendish Codex 2.

Don't get me wrong: Devil's aren't just expecting you to want to bind them, they're banking on it. When your lifespan is measured in the duration of the entire universe, what is 500 years of service to some guy who will probably not even survive the first 500 years of that? Or the next, or the next, or the next, and so on and so forth. Outsiders can absolutely play the Long game. I absolutely agree that Planar Binding is Slavery, and Slavery? Is Lawful Evil.

[liquidformat]

It's in the description for Bind Fiend

hmm interesting, I hadn't noticed that before. However, I don't think that is an applicable argument for the blanket statement of 'demons don't seek retribution for being bound(by planar binding) normally'.
First, Bind Fiend(Su) is based around the premise that you as the fiend binder can exert control over a fiend because you have its true name. Because you know their truename and can therefor exert powerful control over not just a demone but also a devil it seems reasonable that most demons and devils would avoid you like the plague after escaping your service.

second, that quote you have says 'fiend' not 'demon' so it is quite reaching to claim that demons don't normally seek revenge for being bound from said quote.

third, using planar binding doesn't give you the true name of the outsider you have bound. In fact I think trying to use planar binding to get the name of the outsider you just bound seems like it would fall under the unreasonable command header.

finally, planar binding isn't based around knowing said outsider's true name so the only time your quote is relevant is when you know said outsider's name. Even then planar binding isn't bind fiend so the only benefit knowing the outsider's true name gives you for planar binding is the ability to call that specific outsider to you when casting the spell.

[Calthropstu]

1. Is there a difference between enslavement via true name or a spell?
2. Fiendbinder deals with Demons exclusively so to claim that the "fiend" in that text refers to devils as well is probably a stretch.
3. You're suggesting Demons behave differently depending on how they were enslaved despite both methods result in the same thing: Complete absolute enslavement. Why would a demon enslaved via Bind Fiend behave any differently than a demon who was enslaved via Planar Binding?
4. Any demon not mentioned in the Fiendbinder PrC is probably outside the jurisdiction of that quote I gave. So Balors are fair game for vengeance.

Regardless, the intent of WotC is right there. WotC wants PCs to enslave fiends via spell, class feature, etc., with a small chance of danger, like rolling a 1 on the charisma check or the occasional non-typical fiend who cares less about his well being and more about vengeance than his typical colleagues, and anyone trying really hard to prevent PCs from enslaving fiends is someone going against WotC intent.

Ummm, the table lists non demons. And the "Usually doesn't seek retribution" is because the fiend in question knows you know its true name. It would avoid you like the plague. Knowing an outsiders true name is basically "See this collar? It will explode if I press this button. So do what I say or else." (I might say "so press it then," but I doubt many have no fear of death like me.)

And, as I said, planar binding is fine. Planar binding abuse? Not so much. Bind 10 demons or devils in a month? No problem. Bind 1000 demons in a month and well, now we're gonna start corrective action. I have no problem with planar binding. It is abuse I have a problem with. If I feel you're gaming the system, it's smack down time.

Besides, such an event can be fun and well role-played. When I ran through the Jade Regent, I had a sorcerer built with planar binding in mind. He was going to counter the Oni with angels. When my GM decided I had done enough to warrant a visit from an angel above my paygrade, I argued with it. I stated that the angels had failed in their duty to protect us from evil outsider influence, and now I was simply forcing them to do the job they should have taken care of a long time ago. After numerous hours of negotiating, I set up an agreement that I would have near unlimited access to lesser planar binding and could perform 20 planar bindings per month until the Oni menace was defeated. I had to run my plans by the planetar in question, and in the final battle I could use greater planar binding to call her to lead our armies and assist in the final fight.

So it went pretty well. But only because I was using them for what is essentially their primary directive, and only because I wasn't threatening them with death. My schtick was generally "Well, you can either serve me for a while assisting with the destruction of evil creatures, or I can leave you in that circle (which had such a high dc they literally couldn't break out) for the same amount of time."

That is an example of planar binding done right.

"I bind 100 genies to get 300 wishes so I can get ALL THE THINGS" is PB NOT being done right.

[noob]

Who use planar binding for doing other things than kidnapping random evil people to redeem them?

[liquidformat]

1. Is there a difference between enslavement via true name or a spell?
2. Fiendbinder deals with Demons exclusively so to claim that the "fiend" in that text refers to devils as well is probably a stretch.
3. You're suggesting Demons behave differently depending on how they were enslaved despite both methods result in the same thing: Complete absolute enslavement. Why would a demon enslaved via Bind Fiend behave any differently than a demon who was enslaved via Planar Binding?
4. Any demon not mentioned in the Fiendbinder PrC is probably outside the jurisdiction of that quote I gave. So Balors are fair game for vengeance.

Regardless, the intent of WotC is right there. WotC wants PCs to enslave fiends via spell, class feature, etc., with a small chance of danger, like rolling a 1 on the charisma check or the occasional non-typical fiend who cares less about his well being and more about vengeance than his typical colleagues, and anyone trying really hard to prevent PCs from enslaving fiends is someone going against WotC intent.

1. the difference is knowing the outsider's true name gives the caster universal power over it, whereas the spell pulls a random outsider of species 'fill in blank' unless I know the 'proper name' of said pit fiend. And although I don't know what the difference between 'true name' and 'proper name' is I would assume the outsider would see providing either as unreasonable demands so until you know its true/proper name being rebound by planar binding really isn't a credible threat for said outsider after its contract is over; whereas fiendbinder's knowledge of the outsider's true name is very much so.

2. I count 3 devils, one nightmare, and 6 demons so yes 'fiend' is a term that includes evil outsiders beyond just demons. Also we have the 'Fiendish' Codex I&II that would also support the interpretation that 'Fiend' is a blanket term for evil outsiders not just demons. I see no stretch in my reasoning.

3. please refer to 1, yes I believe it is very reasonable that they behave differently based on enslaved method.


I'm pretty sure you can't kill the fiend with the True Name. It's not on the list of commands you can give it which is exhaustive. So I'm pretty sure it's not death but enslavement they're fearing. PB is weaker I'll give ya that but the advantage is on the spellcaster because he can trap the creature anytime anywhere so the creature, if he gave his name to the spellcaster, is at his complete mercy.

Since we are playing this game:

it cannot attack you, even if you attack it.
No where does it say a fiend you previously bound through bind fiend and either release or escapes is now capable of attacking you so by RAW once bound it can never attack you. Therefore to seek revenge it must figure out how to get a creature more powerful than it to do so. Ya I would say that would rarely happen and take some doing...

[Endarire]

@OP: My house rule is to limit one active creature at a time to each planar binding spell. If a Wizard casts lesser, normal, and greater, to get 3 minions, he gets 3 minions.

[Cosi]

Hell, I am literally running a campaign with this premise. Wizards stole millions of elementals, placed them into magic items en masse and now the elementals are attacking the prime material plane and destroying magic items to release their bretheren's souls and punish those responsible.

And I gave the elementals class levels.

So yeah. Dangerous.

No, not dangerous. "Consequences from planar binding" isn't causing danger there, it's just fluff (and I guess a slight buff to Rangers, Artificers, and anyone else who can get an anti-Elemental buff). There was always going to be some campaign where you fought some monsters. All planar binding did was make that campaign "elementals invade because they're pissed off about planar binding". Unless you use it as justification for level-inappropriate encounters -- which is bad DMing -- planar binding-based vengeance is just fluff.

[Jack_Simth]

That's the whole point: Planar Binding is ridiculous, because it gives you such complete control with such a low level spell when it'd normally take a 9th level spell and even then with some reservations. It shouldn't work like that. Level 5 spell shouldn't grant you permanent dominatedish minion of power level equal to your character level and with infinite repeatability and no cost. I believe we can agree on this?
It doesn't work like that. You get to make one deal with the thing. "Impossible demands or unreasonable commands are never agreed to." - that's straight out of the text of Lesser Planar Binding, from which all the others inherit. With no clear definition of what that means, the DM has carte blanche to say "Do everything I say for the next X days" is an "unreasonable command". Convincing a lantern archon to spend a week mass manufacturing Everburning Torches to light your city and make crime harder is probably reasonable - it's an at-will standard-action for them, and should be mostly in line with their ethos. Trying to order them to carry your messages while they're there after the fact? "No Sir" says BOB (Beautiful Orange Ball). "You got one task, and I'm doing that now." Asking a standard Genie to follow you around for ten days and provide food with their 1/day Create Food and water is probably fine. When you later want him to make you a set of cotton pants with his Major Creation spell-like? "No, sorry. That's extra. How much can you pay?" Binding a Hezrou, and telling it to go kill everyone in that caravan? They explicitly love fighting, so no problem. Oh, turns out there was someone in there you didn't want killed? Should of thought of that before you gave the order, too late to change the deal now. Bind a devil to balance out it's evil deeds? 100% against it's nature: For him, it's an "unreasonable command": Not happening.

All the text needed to nix the worst abuses are already right there in the spell. At most, you'll need to extend the "one day per caster level" limit to even tasks that can (eventually) be completed by the creature with it's own actions - so as to prevent the 100 year service thing.

Besides, it's not even an enchantment; how the hell is it giving you said control in the first place? This change fixes the spell pretty completely (though Geas might require rethinking; the balanced level of control for Planar Binding to grant would be closer to Charm Monster than Dominate Monster), while also making it more sensible school and level-wise; in short, an all-around upside.
Not really. It just makes it more annoying to use.

Also, Summon Monster I also gives you control of a critter. As does Summon Nature's Ally I. And II, and III, and IV... as does Gate.

Dual-school spells came into 3.5 much later than the Planar Binding line.



And seriously, who cares if Sorc is worse or better than a Wizard when we have a whole category of classes that's "brokenly OP if used as written" and this fixes one of the most egregious problems. Geas has no save so that isn't an issue for scrolls anyways. Whether Sorc has to go through a bit more trouble to use it but has better stats to use is a minor matter in comparison to what you gain. Sorc also has Bluff out of the gate and Diplomacy with some effort; it's not like you should easily be able to get complete control over a creature that powerful that easily.
"Blow a save" is actually pretty standard for that, and the target gets a save prior to being called into the trap. It's Will, even.

[Florian]

@OP:

I don´t really house-rule Planar Binding, rather I go with the strictest possible interpretation of the spell and how it functions:

1) The spell is one complete "unit", cannot be broken down into individual components or targets. Unless some ability states otherwise (PF has some spells and feats that supplement PB), there's no place/space to cram in other spells, skill/class feature/item uses on the individual parts of PB. The spell will either run its course and be targeted completely, or not at all. (No Dominate, no torture, only the SR check and the CHA check...)

2) The target creature is always a full NPC with everything that goes with it, especially if a true name is involved. That also includes what is deemed to be a reasonable request and how the aspects of failure or vengeance would look like, how the creature interprets the task it will be forced to handle.

3) The negotiation must include the complete task, outlining everything that comes attached to it. It must include everything that is expected to be done by the bound creature up front, with no wiggle room of "Serve me in general, I will give you specific instructions later".

(4 and 5 are more PF specific)

4) There are no "generic bribes". The example list in Ultimate Magic what specific form of bribe in what equivalent of WBL is suitable for each creature/creature type stands and can't be substituted with generic WBL. (Example: While a simple Bearded Devil can be bribed with magic glaives, others will require the sacrifice of a good cleric of certain HD and so on)

5) No overlap with the Contract rules, especially not Infernal Contracts.

[Eldariel]

It doesn't work like that. You get to make one deal with the thing. "Impossible demands or unreasonable commands are never agreed to." - that's straight out of the text of Lesser Planar Binding, from which all the others inherit. With no clear definition of what that means, the DM has carte blanche to say "Do everything I say for the next X days" is an "unreasonable command". Convincing a lantern archon to spend a week mass manufacturing Everburning Torches to light your city and make crime harder is probably reasonable - it's an at-will standard-action for them, and should be mostly in line with their ethos. Trying to order them to carry your messages while they're there after the fact? "No Sir" says BOB (Beautiful Orange Ball). "You got one task, and I'm doing that now." Asking a standard Genie to follow you around for ten days and provide food with their 1/day Create Food and water is probably fine. When you later want him to make you a set of cotton pants with his Major Creation spell-like? "No, sorry. That's extra. How much can you pay?" Binding a Hezrou, and telling it to go kill everyone in that caravan? They explicitly love fighting, so no problem. Oh, turns out there was someone in there you didn't want killed? Should of thought of that before you gave the order, too late to change the deal now. Bind a devil to balance out it's evil deeds? 100% against it's nature: For him, it's an "unreasonable command": Not happening.

All the text needed to nix the worst abuses are already right there in the spell. At most, you'll need to extend the "one day per caster level" limit to even tasks that can (eventually) be completed by the creature with it's own actions - so as to prevent the 100 year service thing.

You're free to argue that as much as you want, but that belongs in RoboEmperor's previous thread, not here. Basically though, RAW is that Cha-check compels obedience. Impossible demand is just that, impossible. Unreasonable is quite open to interpretation and as such, a discussion about that on an online forum will accomplish absolutely nothing.


Not really. It just makes it more annoying to use.

It means the creature serves you not because a magic Charisma-check said so but because an actual effect, each with its own limitations and restrictions, does so.


Also, Summon Monster I also gives you control of a critter. As does Summon Nature's Ally I. And II, and III, and IV... as does Gate.

Yeah, fake creatures in all but Gate and for rounds/level. That's not on the same plane of power as days/level that can be used out of combat at no XP/GP cost ('cause you don't, again, need bribes).


Dual-school spells came into 3.5 much later than the Planar Binding line.

Yes, and that changes nothing about Planar Binding having a component that's unnecessary, unfitting and broken. Why are you arguing against cutting away a festering limb?


"Blow a save" is actually pretty standard for that, and the target gets a save prior to being called into the trap. It's Will, even.

Yeah, a creature on a random plane out of combat blowing a save comes at no cost tho. It doesn't have any means to threaten you, there's zero risk involved, there are no actions of note used, etc. In short, "blow a save" is a fine defense in a combat encounter but Planar Binding is broken precisely because it's a non-combat tool to produce long-duration underlings of considerable power. Whether or not you have to cast it three or four times to get one is pretty immaterial; eventually your target will blow its save 'cause there's zero opportunity cost involved.

[Feantar]

I think Demon Lords have more infinite power than Devils. Demons outnumber Devils by a large, large margin. Forgot the exact number but it was like x8 to x12 more demons, and unlike Devils, they don't replenish their numbers via souls. Their numbers just replenish by themselves because Abyss.

I think only the Obyriths spawn naturally without souls (The Tanar'ri are souls and the Loumara are godly essence) and I am unsure that the Obyriths take part in the blood war. I think only the Tanar'ri do. Might be really wrong on this one.


Most things you'll be binding are not subject to Dominate Person, so you'll need Dominate Monster, which is 9th.

Wait...most? Can you call any humanoids with planar binding? I thought you could only call outsiders and elementals. Or are you including gate under the binding umbrella (which calls anything not native to your current plane).

[Jack_Simth]

You're free to argue that as much as you want, but that belongs in RoboEmperor's previous thread, not here. Basically though, RAW is that Cha-check compels obedience. Impossible demand is just that, impossible. Unreasonable is quite open to interpretation and as such, a discussion about that on an online forum will accomplish absolutely nothing.

It is open to interpretation. But tell me:

When the text is well open to an interpretation that stops the need for most of the house rules about control and such that you'd put in there.. what's the point of those house rules? Either way it's the DM doing it. The interpretation's fully within RAW, which means you'll generally get less complaints.

It means the creature serves you not because a magic Charisma-check said so but because an actual effect, each with its own limitations and restrictions, does so.
How is the block of text from the spell not "an actual effect"?


Yeah, fake creatures in all but Gate and for rounds/level. That's not on the same plane of power as days/level that can be used out of combat at no XP/GP cost ('cause you don't, again, need bribes).

Per the Summoning Subschool (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#summoning):
A summoning spell instantly brings a creature or object to a place you designate. When the spell ends or is dispelled, a summoned creature is instantly sent back to where it came from, but a summoned object is not sent back unless the spell description specifically indicates this. A summoned creature also goes away if it is killed or if its hit points drop to 0 or lower. It is not really dead. It takes 24 hours for the creature to reform, during which time it can’t be summoned again.

When the spell that summoned a creature ends and the creature disappears, all the spells it has cast expire. A summoned creature cannot use any innate summoning abilities it may have, and it refuses to cast any spells that would cost it XP, or to use any spell-like abilities that would cost XP if they were spells. (emphasis added)

Where do you get that a summon is a fake creature?

And if duration's the only issue, I'd submit Mount (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/mount.htm) and Elemental Swarm (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/elementalSwarm.htm).

It's not the school's forte, but yeah, it grants control over the stuff it brings.


Yes, and that changes nothing about Planar Binding having a component that's unnecessary, unfitting and broken. Why are you arguing against cutting away a festering limb?

That'd be because:
1) I don't agree with you that it's a "festering limb"
2) It does very little to hurt the strongest class to which it applies (Wizard), and is actually useful to said strongest (the implied requirement for Charm / Dominate / Geas / et cetera will make more folks use that route), and weakens a class that isn't the strongest (Sorcerer - requires even more spells known, and those are what the sorcerer hurts for). This is not a good choice for game balance.
3) Unneeded house rules just clutter the game (more than it already is).


Yeah, a creature on a random plane out of combat blowing a save comes at no cost tho. It doesn't have any means to threaten you, there's zero risk involved, there are no actions of note used, etc. In short, "blow a save" is a fine defense in a combat encounter but Planar Binding is broken precisely because it's a non-combat tool to produce long-duration underlings of considerable power. Whether or not you have to cast it three or four times to get one is pretty immaterial; eventually your target will blow its save 'cause there's zero opportunity cost involved.
When it's stuck in a calling diagram (and really, how often do you see the spell cast without one?), the same still applies vs. Charm Monster, Lesser Geas, Dominate Monster, Suggestion, or whatever spell you'd choose to use.

Wait...most? Can you call any humanoids with planar binding? I thought you could only call outsiders and elementals. Or are you including gate under the binding umbrella (which calls anything not native to your current plane).
Not that I specifically know of, but given that this is D&D, I'm not going to exclude the possibility of, say, a critter that counts as both Outsider and Humanoid (whichever is worse) when subjected to spells.

[Calthropstu]

No, not dangerous. "Consequences from planar binding" isn't causing danger there, it's just fluff (and I guess a slight buff to Rangers, Artificers, and anyone else who can get an anti-Elemental buff). There was always going to be some campaign where you fought some monsters. All planar binding did was make that campaign "elementals invade because they're pissed off about planar binding". Unless you use it as justification for level-inappropriate encounters -- which is bad DMing -- planar binding-based vengeance is just fluff.

No, it's perfectly fine gming. I don't know why you hate level inappropriate encounters, but they WILL happen if you piss off the wrong people. And the plabes have most of "the wrong people" to piss off.

[noob]

I like overwhelming encounters.
Which is why if the gm says I will get revenge from the demons I will use planar binding as many times as needed to trigger the encounters.
Alternatively if planar binding does not allows to escape plot I guess I will ask the party archivist or paladin to cast escape plot.(a real spell but it does not have that name)

[noob]

I talked with a low-mid op DM, and he told me he doesn't mind Planar Binding with the following restrictions
1. Only one combat minion
2. Only one noncombat minion
3. You cannot bind a creature whose CR > Party ECL

So my opinion on your rules
1) Moot with Surge of Fortune, but you shouldn't let the the PC avoid rolling with roleplay only.
2) Agree
3) See above
4) This should be used as an adventure/encounter hook rather than a punishment
5) I think this is unnecessary. A player who wants a creature is gonna optimize against whatever you throw at them so this isn't addressing the issue. Just have the creature stipulate his terms during the binding and make it an "unreasonable command" if the PC doesn't agree to that. For example, a Devil might say he would never work with a Demon so he would say he would serve the PC as long as there are no demons in his party, or something like that.
Unless working with the demon is done with terms that gives that devil a good chance to kill the demon.
In fact you could probably fuel more hate to the blood war(it is a quite evil and horrific thing to do but it might make each side suspect you might be on the other side and thus get more demons and devils to attack you which is a good thing)

[Cosi]

No, it's perfectly fine gming. I don't know why you hate level inappropriate encounters, but they WILL happen if you piss off the wrong people. And the plabes have most of "the wrong people" to piss off.

If your response to PCs having different expectations about the usage of planar binding than you is to repeatedly TPK them until they start reading your mind, instead of communicating with them like the adults they presumably are, I don't think that reflects well on you as a DM. The best case is that you either don't trust or don't respect them, and neither of those is indicative of a healthy game.

[Hackulator]

If your response to PCs having different expectations about the usage of planar binding than you is to repeatedly TPK them until they start reading your mind, instead of communicating with them like the adults they presumably are, I don't think that reflects well on you as a DM. The best case is that you either don't trust or don't respect them, and neither of those is indicative of a healthy game.

This is what we call a strawman argument, where you argue against something (in this case, repeated TPKs without communication) that literally nobody ever said anything about.

[Cosi]

This is what we call a strawman argument, where you argue against something (in this case, repeated TPKs without communication) that literally nobody ever said anything about.

No, there's a binary. Either you have the "revenge" encounters be appropriate challenges for the PCs, in which case they're no different than any other encounter, or you have them be inappropriate encounters, which means you're TPKing the PCs. And the reason you're doing this is to add "consequences" to planar binding because you don't want PCs to use it very much. It's not a strawman, it's just that "punish the PCs with encounters that they can't deal with because they didn't use an ability you didn't tell them not to use" is a super terrible way to run a game.

[Hackulator]

No, there's a binary. Either you have the "revenge" encounters be appropriate challenges for the PCs, in which case they're no different than any other encounter, or you have them be inappropriate encounters, which means you're TPKing the PCs. And the reason you're doing this is to add "consequences" to planar binding because you don't want PCs to use it very much. It's not a strawman, it's just that "punish the PCs with encounters that they can't deal with because they didn't use an ability you didn't tell them not to use" is a super terrible way to run a game.

Have you actually never survived a level inappropriate encounter?

[liquidformat]

No, there's a binary. Either you have the "revenge" encounters be appropriate challenges for the PCs, in which case they're no different than any other encounter, or you have them be inappropriate encounters, which means you're TPKing the PCs. And the reason you're doing this is to add "consequences" to planar binding because you don't want PCs to use it very much. It's not a strawman, it's just that "punish the PCs with encounters that they can't deal with because they didn't use an ability you didn't tell them not to use" is a super terrible way to run a game.

Level inappropriate encounter does not equate TPK. Things like Final boss battles are rarely 'level appropriate' encounters for starters. Furthermore, Level inappropriate encounters don't have to equate to a battle, even. Like the example of a boss coming to seek restitution for the devils you have been taking from him, sure you can tell him to shut it and attack but you could also take a different approach to the 'Level inappropriate encounter' that doesn't have any combat what so ever. Also Level inappropriate encounter could mean they aren't a challenge....

[Cosi]

Have you actually never survived a level inappropriate encounter?

See, that's a strawman. Because "level inappropriate" means "too powerful to beat at your level", or, I suppose "too weak to be a challenge at your level" but that's even more obviously not a constraint. It's like asking if someone has survived a fatal car crash.

Again, there are two options:

A) The revenge encounters are like other encounters (which includes ranging from "easy but a challenge" to "hard but survivable"), and "planar binding vengeance" is therefore fluff.
B) The revenge encounters are lethal punishment encounters, and you are punish your players for not reading your mind to find out what you consider appropriate usage of planar binding.

Calthropsu rejects option A, and therefore endorses option B. If you think that's a strawman, take it up with him. He has explicitly rejected the idea that when creatures come for revenge, they would do so in a way PCs could reasonably expect to be equipped to deal with. Frankly, even if the encounters are merely consistently "very difficult, but technically survivable", that's still bad DMing. There's just no version of this where "arbitrarily punish your PCs" is better than "talk to them". The fact that this is controversial at all reflects very poorly on everyone arguing on your side of this.

[Hackulator]

See, that's a strawman. Because "level inappropriate" means "too powerful to beat at your level". It's like asking if someone has survived a fatal car crash.

Again, there are two options:

A) The revenge encounters are like other encounters (which includes ranging from "easy but a challenge" to "hard but survivable"), and "planar binding vengeance" is therefore fluff.
B) The revenge encounters are lethal punishment encounters, and you are punish your players for not reading your mind to find out what you consider appropriate usage of planar binding.

Calthropsu rejects option A, and therefore endorses option B. If you think that's a strawman, take it up with him.

Dude, I'm not sure if you have just been plagued with terrible DMs or what, but you clearly operate under a false set of assumptions. Victory or death are not the only possibly outcomes of an encounter. Level inappropriate encounters are not unbeatable. DMs talk to players before murdering them.

[Cosi]

Yes, good DMs do talk to their players. That's why they don't dispatch overwhelming encounters to get them to stop using abilities they don't like. Which makes doing that not good DMing. I don't see where we disagree, except that you really want to leave the door open for DMs to jerk players around in game, which is an obviously stupid door to leave open.

[Hackulator]

Yes, good DMs do talk to their players. That's why they don't dispatch overwhelming encounters to get them to stop using abilities they don't like. Which makes doing that not good DMing. I don't see where we disagree, except that you really want to leave the door open for DMs to jerk players around in game, which is an obviously stupid door to leave open.

Well I mean first of all, jerking your players around is one of the great joys of DMing. It is perfectly possible to have fun when your DM is jerking you around as long as it's not all of the time. The game gets pretty boring if things ALWAYS go well well for your characters, unless you're one of the people who just play D&D to "win" which I guess is fine but is not me or any of my tables. Are you telling me you've never had a DM screw with you in a way that was annoying in character but entertaining out of character?

As for the rest I can tell someone Planar Binding is dangerous and they can use it anyway and understand bad things might happen and that's just part of the game. I mean, it does not require a level inappropriate encounter to be a problem. Maybe someone burns down your house while you're doing something else and that wouldn't have happened anyway. Maybe you fail at a goal cause someone screws up what you are doing, even though they don't kill you. Maybe they cast their own version of Planar Binding on YOU and make you do some **** for them. I suppose if you play characters who have no goals or desires other than to just progress linearly through encounters none of this would matter to you, but to a lot of people individual character goals are a thing.

[SLOTHRPG95]

Victory or death are not the only possibly outcomes of an encounter.

Very true. This is a perfect example of a false dichotomy. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that in most cases, when a group of intelligent foes attack (or are attacked by) a party, the losing side should end up withdrawing before sustaining 100% fatalities. If this isn't the case, there has to either be a strong motivator for the losing side to fight to the death (e.g. players providing time for the king's army to escape in a heroic rearguard action), or one side outclasses the other so much that retreat isn't possible (standard 10th-level party of heroes ambushes a patrol of ten 1st-level orc warriors). With that said:


Level inappropriate encounters are not unbeatable.

Yes and no. If you take "level inappropriate encounters" to be those of the CR that the DMG says will be overwhelming for an n-th level party, then this is true. However, I think a more useful definition of "level-inappropriate encounter" is one where the party cannot reasonably hope to win. Maybe they can run, and probably some of them will survive the retreat. But they're not winning.


DMs talk to players before murdering them.

Ideally. And as a DM, I've extended this to trying to talk to players before they accidentally kill themselves through their own stupidity. However, that's not how every table plays. At some (not mine), "you should've known better than to bind a pit fiend, now Mephistopheles comes to collect his servant and your soul" isn't an expression of the DM killing you. It's the expression that you screwed yourself, and didn't have enough common sense to see that.

[Hackulator]

Yes and no. If you take "level inappropriate encounters" to be those of the CR that the DMG says will be overwhelming for an n-th level party, then this is true. However, I think a more useful definition of "level-inappropriate encounter" is one where the party cannot reasonably hope to win. Maybe they can run, and probably some of them will survive the retreat. But they're not winning.

I mean, that makes very little sense, because if what you mean is "unbeatable encounters" just say "unbeatable encounters" as opposed to using a term that is bound to be more confusing because it has a different meaning.

[Eldariel]

Again, there are two options:

A) The revenge encounters are like other encounters (which includes ranging from "easy but a challenge" to "hard but survivable"), and "planar binding vengeance" is therefore fluff.
B) The revenge encounters are lethal punishment encounters, and you are punish your players for not reading your mind to find out what you consider appropriate usage of planar binding.

I think there's a third option: that Planar Binding revenge encounters, and whether they should occur in the first place, depend on the organisation of the creature that happened to get bound (determinable via. a die roll as per usual) and as such, the power of the revenge is somewhat random. However, it might also take the form of the slighted party acting with other malevolent parties ramping up the whole campaign difficulty.

[SLOTHRPG95]

I mean, that makes very little sense, because if what you mean is "unbeatable encounters" just say "unbeatable encounters" as opposed to using a term that is bound to be more confusing because it has a different meaning.

Not to split hairs, but there's a difference between an encounter that a party doesn't have a reasonable chance of winning, and one that is unbeatable. That's the main reason I don't want to use the phrase "unbeatable encounters" to mean what I say. Because no, it's not what I mean, so that would be more confusing.

[liquidformat]

Again, there are two options:

A) The revenge encounters are like other encounters (which includes ranging from "easy but a challenge" to "hard but survivable"), and "planar binding vengeance" is therefore fluff.
B) The revenge encounters are lethal punishment encounters, and you are punish your players for not reading your mind to find out what you consider appropriate usage of planar binding.


I completely disagree that there are only two options. For example:
C) Binding an outsider from organization/religion x makes you and your group an enemy of said organization/religion and while they may not actively seek you out you have been blacklisted making you unwelcome in certain places you might otherwise go or loose potential avenue of help.
- This type of reaction would be reasonable as a reaction from planar binding a good aligned outsider after it was found out.
D) As stated before big bad devil boss or similarly powerful boss type figure comes looking for reparations for PB'ing its subordinate.
- Like I said before this could be handled from a DM point of view without any intent for a battle to ensue, if the players decide to start a fight they can't win that is their fault not a malicious DM.

[liquidformat]

D) is no different than B).

Give me all your money for using my minion or i'm gonna bust a cap in your ass.

I suppose it depends on how it is handled by the dm.

However, B similarly is very dependent on power level of the party, there are plenty of op groups out there that can handle 'level inappropriate' encounters without blinking an eye. And plenty that can't handle 'level appropriate' encounters...

[Calthropstu]

See, that's a strawman. Because "level inappropriate" means "too powerful to beat at your level", or, I suppose "too weak to be a challenge at your level" but that's even more obviously not a constraint. It's like asking if someone has survived a fatal car crash.

Again, there are two options:

A) The revenge encounters are like other encounters (which includes ranging from "easy but a challenge" to "hard but survivable"), and "planar binding vengeance" is therefore fluff.
B) The revenge encounters are lethal punishment encounters, and you are punish your players for not reading your mind to find out what you consider appropriate usage of planar binding.

Calthropsu rejects option A, and therefore endorses option B. If you think that's a strawman, take it up with him. He has explicitly rejected the idea that when creatures come for revenge, they would do so in a way PCs could reasonably expect to be equipped to deal with. Frankly, even if the encounters are merely consistently "very difficult, but technically survivable", that's still bad DMing. There's just no version of this where "arbitrarily punish your PCs" is better than "talk to them". The fact that this is controversial at all reflects very poorly on everyone arguing on your side of this.

So yeah. You are as full of vitriol towards me as always. It has never actually come to this in my games. Most people never even use it at my tables, and don't even ask. But to put it simply, here's how it would play out:

"As you walk about, pet demons in tow the ground erupts in a mass of fire. 4 Marilith demons and a Balor appear. The Mariliths take up defensive positions to prevent you from approaching the Balor. The Balor towers over them and looks at you in contempt. 'YOU are the pitiful mortal who has been taking my minions?'

End result: The Balor takes everything you own for the services you stole, and (more importantly) forcing him to come out and deal with you personally. He will leave you your pitiful life, but in exchange, you must (in addition to giving him your valuables (including your spellbook if you have one)) perform a service for HIM. Once the service is complete, providing you do well, you can bind demons without fear of retribution... to a point. Exceed it, and well... Demons are never merciful twice to the same being.

No tpk, no campaign ending calamity, just a giant bitch slap from a being you can't take down.

[Cosi]

So, yes, "you could railroad the players into doing what you want instead of killing them unless they do what you want" is technically different from "you could repeatedly kill the players", but it's not meaningfully different. You had the choice to talk to your players like adults, but instead of doing that you decided you use your authority as DM to force them to do what you want because they had slightly different assumptions about how planar binding should be used than you. That is not good DMing. Good DMing is recognizing in advance that planar binding is a friction point for the game and discussing with your players how to modify it in a way that allows them to achieve their fantasy of binding powerful allies without swinging the party's power level so much you can't handle it. Good DMing is using "monsters want revenge on you" as a plot hook to create an adversary who the PCs have a reason to care about. Bitch slapping the PCs is not good DMing. Forcing the PCs to repent for using any ability in the way the rules say they can use it is not good DMing.

[Calthropstu]

So, yes, "you could railroad the players into doing what you want instead of killing them unless they do what you want" is technically different from "you could repeatedly kill the players", but it's not meaningfully different. You had the choice to talk to your players like adults, but instead of doing that you decided you use your authority as DM to force them to do what you want because they had slightly different assumptions about how planar binding should be used than you. That is not good DMing. Good DMing is recognizing in advance that planar binding is a friction point for the game and discussing with your players how to modify it in a way that allows them to achieve their fantasy of binding powerful allies without swinging the party's power level so much you can't handle it. Good DMing is using "monsters want revenge on you" as a plot hook to create an adversary who the PCs have a reason to care about. Bitch slapping the PCs is not good DMing. Forcing the PCs to repent for using any ability in the way the rules say they can use it is not good DMing.

Actions have consequences. If you start messing with the planes freely and start playing "look at me, I'm the badass summoner who can make all these planar creatures my slaves and no one can stop me mwahahaha" well, you're being an idiot with dangerous creatures. And that has consequences. Making you face the consequences of your actions is literally the job of the gm. Fortunately, no one has done that in my game because, well, I generally tend to play with adults, and my players don't generally try to be overpowered douchenozzles. I DO have conversations with my players on planar binding when it is brought up, and my response is "sure, but keep in mind you're messing with dangerous creatures. Abusing planar creatures will likely come back to bite you in the ass."

Bind a genie for wishes? Sure. But now they're pissed, and guess who is getting more wishes than you? If you guessed "BBEG" you're a winner! When it comes to PB, the GM is the sole adjudicator. I am guessing you are so sour on this because no gm lets you use it the way you want to. And there's a reason for that.

[Cosi]

I am guessing you are so sour on this because no gm lets you use it the way you want to. And there's a reason for that.

Yes, that would explain the thread I made about making planar binding balanced out of the box, and the post I made in this thread about how to balance planar binding. Clearly, my apparent desire for a version of planar binding that is balanced is actually a clever cover for my desire to break the game. You figured it out!

Or, maybe, I'm able to figure out that your desire to brutally railroad players for overstepping your poorly defined sense of how planar binding should be used is massively more disruptive to the game than 99% of the uses of planar binding. But you know, it's definitely the thing that's inconsistent with my stated position here and elsewhere, and not that.

Honestly, this kind of thing is embarrassing. I get that my positions are sometimes controversial, but you would think that when people did passive aggressiveness put-downs, they would at least figure out something that wasn't contradicted by something I said in the thread where the argument was occurring.

[Calthropstu]

Cosi is correct in the matter here.

If I wanted to have a cool monster beatstick, and I turn to planar binding, and I use planar binding to obtain a cool monster beatstick, the DM taking my entire WBL for doing what WotC intended for me to do is a **** move. And that's what you're doing here.

You have to be a little meta with the game with PB. Discuss with the DM, discuss what monsters he's comfortable with at what levels and bind the stronger monsters later even though you can bind them now, etc. etc.

Keeping players in the blind and bitchslapping them for doing what WotC intended the players do is a **** move.

As I stated, it is not planar binding USE that gets put down, it is planar binding ABUSE. You want to get a cool beatstick? Sure. You want to send out a few dozen hound archon spies into a hostile city? Fine. You want to cast planar binding 30 times a day for 2 weeks to get an army of 600 demons to wage a war, or want to get wish spams? Yeah, now we have a problem. I have always maintained it is ABUSE that needs to be struck down. Using planar binding can be pretty cool, and can open up all sorts of story lines. Its abuse simply breaks the game.

[Cosi]

Yes, planar binding abuse is a problem. But there is a right way and a wrong way to prevent it. The right way is to talk to your players and come to a group consensus about what counts as abuse. The wrong way is to say "no abuse" and then "bitch slap" anyone who "abuses" planar binding. This isn't hard, people just make it hard because they think the DM deserves to be able to jerk people around (witness: someone in this thread saying one of the best parts of DMing is jerking players around). Its not. The DM is just someone at the table playing the game like everyone else. Him prioritizing his own fun and his own idea of how the game should be played (e.g. by "bitch slapping" the PCs) is bad, just as other players doing that (e.g. by abusing planar binding to break the campaign) is bad. Thinking otherwise is just saying that because you run the game you should be entitled to ruin the game.

[Calthropstu]

Yes, planar binding abuse is a problem. But there is a right way and a wrong way to prevent it. The right way is to talk to your players and come to a group consensus about what counts as abuse. The wrong way is to say "no abuse" and then "bitch slap" anyone who "abuses" planar binding. This isn't hard, people just make it hard because they think the DM deserves to be able to jerk people around (witness: someone in this thread saying one of the best parts of DMing is jerking players around). Its not. The DM is just someone at the table playing the game like everyone else. Him prioritizing his own fun and his own idea of how the game should be played (e.g. by "bitch slapping" the PCs) is bad, just as other players doing that (e.g. by abusing planar binding to break the campaign) is bad. Thinking otherwise is just saying that because you run the game you should be entitled to ruin the game.

ruin the game? Do you equate losing some belongings equates to ruining the game? Thus far, none of my rulings on how things work has really ruined any of my campaigns. And, since I have never had to actually DO that, the point is moot.

You claim a conversation needs to take place, but I maintain the opposite. You should already know where the line should be drawn. Where the grey zones are, and somewhere where the line exists that is "do not cross." If you're constantly in those grey zones, then you probably deserve those slap downs. If you're not, then you will never need rebuking. My players thus far have never needed it for this matter.

[Hackulator]

ruin the game? Do you equate losing some belongings equates to ruining the game? Thus far, none of my rulings on how things work has really ruined any of my campaigns. And, since I have never had to actually DO that, the point is moot.

You claim a conversation needs to take place, but I maintain the opposite. You should already know where the line should be drawn. Where the grey zones are, and somewhere where the line exists that is "do not cross." If you're constantly in those grey zones, then you probably deserve those slap downs. If you're not, then you will never need rebuking. My players thus far have never needed it for this matter.

I mean, how are people supposed to know where the line should be drawn if there is never a conversation? DMs have very different ideas about what's acceptable.

[Cosi]

I mean, how are people supposed to know where the line should be drawn if there is never a conversation? DMs have very different ideas about what's acceptable.

You're just supposed to know. Which is what I mean by "read the DM's mind or get bitch slapped". That's just an obviously unhealthy way to run the game. Calthropsu's view seems to be akin to that of the Empire in Star Wars: "Fear will keep the players in line. Fear of getting bitch slapped."

[SLOTHRPG95]

You're just supposed to know. Which is what I mean by "read the DM's mind or get bitch slapped". That's just an obviously unhealthy way to run the game. Calthropsu's view seems to be akin to that of the Empire in Star Wars: "Fear will keep the players in line. Fear of getting bitch slapped."

To be fair, this does indeed seem to work at Calthropsu's table, at least to hear them talk about it.

On a serious note, I don't think it's necessarily bad to have some lines be fuzzy. If you talk to your players and say, e.g. that binding two or three Bone Devils for 1 day/CL each to serve as bodyguards is fine, but binding twenty at a time under those conditions will definitely end in nasty retaliation, you've set a boundary. If your player asks, "well how about exactly eight? or twelve?" in an attempt to divine some precise threshold, it's not unreasonable to say, "well try it and see, or don't and don't." At that point, the player has the choice to stay in the safe zone clearly marked "zero consequences," go directly to the unsafe zone marked "I'll definitely get screwed later," or wade somewhere in the middle and see what happens. How far they're willing to wade is up to their level of risk tolerance. If they're extremely risk-averse, maybe they'll never go beyond three bodyguards, ever, for fear of even four being beyond the pale. If they're extremely risk-tolerant, maybe they decide to go with nineteen, since they're technically still in the grey zone, and hence (potentially) the most potent choice without guaranteed negative consequences. Most likely, they'll fall somewhere in between these two extremes, and push the envelope farther than they normally would when they feel that they desperately need the extra muscle for whatever reason.

This sort of approach allows for an extra layer of verisimilitude, with the caster not knowing precisely how far is too far. It also mimics real-life risk/reward comparisons, where there's often one end of the spectrum that's clearly negligible risk, minimal reward, and another that's absurdly high-risk, theoretically huge reward, and then a fuzzy ground in the middle. Now, I personally think that in the above example, it'd be wrong to just say, "try it and find out" without providing any guidance. Whether or not you deem it reasonable in-game for the wizard to know that there's no way you're going to get her in trouble for using two Bone Devils as bodyguards is irrelevant. This sort of minionmancy is a toy, let her play with it in a safe way if she's willing to understand that leaving the bounds you've marked out for more power can lead to bad things. If you're not willing to do even that much, then just ban the spell and be done with it.

[SLOTHRPG95]

Two or three bone devils are not fine. Even with one you're getting infinite BFC with at-will wall of ice and at-will fly at no cost to your action economy. Two is too much.

Also, don't forget shutting down the tactical mobility of your enemies via at-will dimensional anchor. Which then makes their BFC more significant, as it's harder to bypass when you don't have tactical, short-range teleportation. But there are still definitely campaigns in which two to three Bone Devils is totally reasonable. Besides, this was just an example. Feel free to adjust parameters (number of creatures, specific creatures) as desired.

[liquidformat]

So just to throw in some perspective here this is an argument of whether or not there should be consequences for kidnapping and slavery...

In general I think Calthropstu and SLOTHRPG95 make more sense. Yes it is reasonable to talk with your players and have set expectations about your games; however, I shouldn't have to tell a player that abusing pb and summoning a literal horde of demons/devils/angels or whatever is not ok. If he has the balls to try he should be ready to face the consequences, that isn't a matter of dm abusing his powers or being a jerk that is just how the game is. If you are obviously jumping head first outside the limits of your group you should be prepared for what comes next...

[Gnaeus]

If a DM ever did to me what Calthropstu is suggesting, I would slowly pour out my beverage on his gaming table and books, spit in his face on the way out his door, and urinate on his lawn before driving away, never to return. Luckily, in my 35 years of gaming I have never had to deal with a DM that bad.

Taking all a PCs gear + their player agency to punish them for doing something you don’t like isn’t the same as killing them. It’s much worse than killing them. Killing a PC is probably a level lost, maybe some gold. At worst it’s reroll a new PC. Taking all their gear that they built up over, presumably, months if not years is just mean.

[Arcanist]

If a DM ever did to me what Calthropstu is suggesting [...]

I would just leave the table, but that is just me :smalltongue:


Taking all a PCs gear + their player agency to punish them for doing something you don’t like isn’t the same as killing them. It’s much worse than killing them. Killing a PC is probably a level lost, maybe some gold. At worst it’s reroll a new PC. Taking all their gear that they built up over, presumably, months if not years is just mean.

This I agree with. A characters wealth and resource is just as much apart of them as their stats and spells. Attacking it is just as potentially lethal as attacking their hit points, because lacking resources to adventure is just as bad as not being able to adventure at all. At least be up front about it and kill the guy at least so you can work with them to build a more setting appropriate character :smallsigh:

[Hackulator]

If a DM ever did to me what Calthropstu is suggesting, I would slowly pour out my beverage on his gaming table and books, spit in his face on the way out his door, and urinate on his lawn before driving away, never to return. Luckily, in my 35 years of gaming I have never had to deal with a DM that bad.

Taking all a PCs gear + their player agency to punish them for doing something you don’t like isn’t the same as killing them. It’s much worse than killing them. Killing a PC is probably a level lost, maybe some gold. At worst it’s reroll a new PC. Taking all their gear that they built up over, presumably, months if not years is just mean.

While I'm sure you're exaggerating significantly this still implies an unhealthy level of attachment to your D&D character and their stuff. Characters die, stuff gets stolen or broken. In the last session of a D&D game I played, we had a random event destroy almost all of our party's magic items. I was mildly annoyed, I gave the DM some crap, then we moved on.

[Gnaeus]

While I'm sure you're exaggerating significantly this still implies an unhealthy level of attachment to your D&D character and their stuff. Characters die, stuff gets stolen or broken. In the last session of a D&D game I played, we had a random event destroy almost all of our party's magic items. I was mildly annoyed, I gave the DM some crap, then we moved on.

1. What is a random event in a D&D game? There’s a lose all your stuff result on a chart?

2. Even Mages Disjunction, which most people I know regard as a pretty awful move, destroys 1 item, or items that nat 1 a game. I’d be pretty angry if a DM started throwing around MDs. I would only expect it in cases where WBL got badly broken, and if it happened for some logical reason, I would expect a DM to throw the injured PCs a bone to compensate. But even that’s better than having a DMPC take all your stuff to swat you on the nose like a bad puppy.

3. Challenges are different than punishment. Plot is different than punishment. Scourge of the slave lords has 2 separate times when PCs get railroad captured and lose their gear, but then they get it back relatively quickly. If there was an encounter in which a rogue sneaks into camp to steal what he can, that’s the game. We should have guarded better.

Both are totally unlike the “Mephistopheles says FU” in the above example. There’s no freaking excuse for that, the person who does it isn’t my friend, and he’s just misusing that gaming table anyway.

[Hackulator]

1. What is a random event in a D&D game? There’s a lose all your stuff result on a chart?

2. Even Mages Disjunction, which most people I know regard as a pretty awful move, destroys 1 item, or items that nat 1 a game. I’d be pretty angry if a DM started throwing around MDs. I would only expect it in cases where WBL got badly broken, and if it happened for some logical reason, I would expect a DM to throw the injured PCs a bone to compensate. But even that’s better than having a DMPC take all your stuff to swat you on the nose like a bad puppy.

3. Challenges are different than punishment. Plot is different than punishment. Scourge of the slave lords has 2 separate times when PCs get railroad captured and lose their gear, but then they get it back relatively quickly. If there was an encounter in which a rogue sneaks into camp to steal what he can, that’s the game. We should have guarded better.

Both are totally unlike the “Mephistopheles says FU” in the above example. There’s no freaking excuse for that, the person who does it isn’t my friend, and he’s just misusing that gaming table anyway.

Yeah it was a Deck of Many Things type deal, though a custom one. One of the things blew up all our stuff.

The implication that you would end a friendship over the loss of your D&D character's items strengthens my belief you have an unhealthy attachment to them, and an unhealthy attitude about the game as a whole.

[Gnaeus]

The thought that my DM thought it was more fun to punish me like a child rather than discuss things like 2 adults before pretty clearly indicates that he was never my friend to begin with. It’s not about the Item. It’s about the fact that such a person has a pile of negative traits that no one I would call a friend would possess.

[Hackulator]

The thought that my DM thought it was more fun to punish me like a child rather than discuss things like 2 adults before pretty clearly indicates that he was never my friend to begin with. It’s not about the Item. It’s about the fact that such a person has a pile of negative traits that no one I would call a friend would possess.

The idea that you equate in-character negative consequences with out-of-character punishment does not in any way change my previously stated belief.

[Gnaeus]

It is possible that your time and self respect are of minimal value. Mine are not.

[Hackulator]

It is possible that your time and self respect are of minimal value. Mine are not.

If your self respect is tied up in your D&D character.....well, I guess I'm just beating a dead horse at this point.

As for my time, bad things happening to my character does not prevent me from having fun and since fun is the whole point I don't see the issue here.

[unseenmage]

It is possible that your time and self respect are of minimal value. Mine are not.

Basically this.

I get to actually play very very rarely these days. And I have long since outgrown any tolerance for Gygaxian intellectual bullying when I'm trying to relax and focus on the fun to be had.

[Jack_Simth]

You need to understand some people play d&d for different reasons and some people don't like it when their character is killed so they don't seek games where character death and wealth loss is common. Calling these people sad for playing d&d wrong because their enjoyment of their game is tied to their d&d character surviving is wrong.

I don't think Hackulator is calling it sad for not liking some imaginary thing - from what I gather, Hackulator is calling sad for having real-world self-respect tied up with Y imaginary thing to the point where one will 'slowly pour out my beverage on his gaming table and books, spit in his face on the way out his door, and urinate on his lawn' for Y imaginary thing happening.

Or to put it another way:
There's nothing wrong with not liking ghost peppers. But there is something wrong with committing vandalism and assault because there happened to be some ghost peppers in your slice of cake (when you're not lethally allergic or anything).

[Hackulator]

I don't think Hackulator is calling it sad for not liking some imaginary thing - from what I gather, Hackulator is calling sad for having real-world self-respect tied up with Y imaginary thing to the point where one will 'slowly pour out my beverage on his gaming table and books, spit in his face on the way out his door, and urinate on his lawn' for Y imaginary thing happening.

Or to put it another way:
There's nothing wrong with not liking ghost peppers. But there is something wrong with committing vandalism and assault because there happened to be some ghost peppers in your slice of cake (when you're not lethally allergic or anything).

This, or the idea that you would end a friendship over a DMing decision you didn't like, or the idea that you cannot differentiate between in-game negative consequences due to your character's actions and out of game "punishment". These are not issues with how you play the game, they are problems with your behavior in real life.

[Jack_Simth]

I don't care whether my character is fictional or not. If a DM says that my PC had a nightmare and in his nightmare sleepwalked and killed an official and I have to endure a 1 hour session of him being put on trial and put to death, I feel tremendous pain and rage all the same even if it's my fictional character dying.

Case is a little different than the one we were discussing but this is something I actually experienced and is not making up.
"Getting angry" is fine. "Walking away" is OK. "Never returning" is perfectly acceptable. Yelling and screaming isn't nice, but is within the bounds of acceptable.

However, if you're attached to the point where your response to such things is:
I would slowly pour out my beverage on his gaming table and books, spit in his face on the way out his door, and urinate on his lawn
In most places, that's vandalism and/or assault. Possibly indecent exposure. That's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

Edit: I don't mean to say "It's perfectly A-OK to curbstomp characters with no warning and little logic" - it's not, really. But you don't shoot someone's tires out for cutting you off in traffic.

[Jack_Simth]

That's fair. Acting on your anger is never a good idea.
"Never" is a word that should be seldom used. Occasionally, logic and emotion will line up: emotions don't exist for no reason. There can be circumstances where the use of force right now will reduce the total harm in a scenario, and in subsets of those circumstances, the 'active agent' will also be angry at the appropriate target (self and other defense scenarios, mostly). That said: Such circumstances are rare. Many, many folks go their entire lives without ever encountering such a situation.

But it's not quite "never".

[smetzger]

Well.. that went off the rails.

I think it is beneficial to talk to players about what you as a dm consider abuse of this spell. What one person considers abuse may seem reasonable to another person. That was my intent of this thread.

As far as acting on anger. I also believe acting on anger _can_ be good. But the anger should be justified and the action should be appropriate.

[Jack_Simth]

Emotions may exist but a lot of them are for primitive reasons instead of civilized reasons. Anger and hatred are more detrimental than beneficial to a civilized society while it's the opposite for primitive societies.

In an age where the only solution is eliminate the source of harm anger and hatred are mandatory, but in an age where the solution is to discuss and settle differences without eradicating the people involved anger and hatred have no place. So "never" is the correct term here because d&d is played by civilized people.

There's a reason people say don't act on emotion.
That works when everyone (including the 'agent of harm') is following compatible rules of behavior.
That works when the 'active agent' has a way to force the 'agent of harm' to suspend harmful activities, discuss, and settle differences.

Trouble is: Not everyone meets that 'civilization standard', you can't just make the folks who don't meet it not exist, and you can't always know who will and will not meet that standard until after the standard is failed.

In order to be useful, any set of rules of behavior must also account for dealings with folks who do not follow those rules of behavior - including those who grossly violate said rules of behavior and will not start following them.

Or to give an example scenario:
Suppose you're working at a concert, and your spouse and children enjoy the artist. You've gotten them tickets.
Partway through the concert, a shooter starts blasting away at the crowd, killing several people.
Suppose you're super-duper angry at the shooter (your spouse and children are at lethal risk, after all).
As people are fleeing, he stops to reload.
While he's reloading, you notice he's directly underneath a 10,000 pound speaker cluster, and you have a very quick and easy way of pulling the pins holding that speaker cluster up (you helped hang that speaker cluster, and are expected to help take it apart after the concert - you know everything about it).

If you pull the pins, the shooter dies, and is the last fatality of the event.

If you do not pull the pins, the shooter continues merrily on his way, killing more folks (until the police arrive in a few minutes, which almost always ends in the shooter's death, whether that's because the shooter doesn't surrender and the police open fire to end an immediate lethal threat to reasonably-innocent folks... or because the shooter kills himself directly).

Pulling the pins happens to be both what "anger" wants and what "least total harm" logic wants (note that there are philosophical paradigms under which pulling the pins is not the right thing to do - "least total harm" is not the only philosophical paradigm that could apply to the situation).

Few folks are going to be acting out of pure logic there. And that's OK.


Don't get me wrong: It's a contrived scenario, and is going to be super-rare. For the most part, logic should rule actions. However... pure logic cannot produce an 'ought'. There's no strictly logical reason to choose pleasure over pain, life over death, the many over the few, or the few over the many. Value judgements are a required component to producing an 'ought', and while those judgements may be manipulated with logic, the value judgements themselves are fundamentally not things of logic. And that's OK.

So no, I'm not going to agree with you on the 'never' there. 'Seldom,' sure. 'Never,' no.

[SLOTHRPG95]

This has digressed a bit off-topic. Bringing things back a bit, here's some hypothetical situations, that could conceivably happen at a table:

1) DM sets hard limit of one PB creature at a time, or there will be retaliation. Player decides to ignore what the DM says, and her wizard binds five Osyluth in the same day. A month later, player gets attacked by a hit squad of two Gelugon, four Osyluth, and twelve Barbazu. Said hit squad opens by dimensional anchor just on the wizard, allowing rest of party to flee if they don't want to die protecting their idiot party member, but guaranteeing that the wizard is gonna get ganked.

2) DM sets soft limit of two or three PB creatures at a time, with hard limit of ten. Exceeding the soft limit means there might be retaliation, and exceeding the hard limit means there definitely will be. Player does as above (which is above the soft limit but below the hard one), and DM reacts as above.

3) As in the second example, but instead the DM does nothing.... for a while. Secretly, he rolls a d% for every in-game week, and consults a complicated chart based off number of creatures bound recently, types of creatures bound, etc. to determine what retaliation, if any, will later take place. After twelve in-game weeks of consistently cycling through Osyluth, the DM finally rolls high enough on the chart for serious retaliation. A smaller hit squad (the Osyluth's Gelugon superior, plus two to three Osyluths backing it up) attacks, with fairly standard tactics.

What would people's reactions be as the player in each of these scenarios? Do any of them seem like the DM is being a ****? On the flip side, if you did this as a DM, what reactions would you expect/find acceptable from the player?

[noob]

This has digressed a bit off-topic. Bringing things back a bit, here's some hypothetical situations, that could conceivably happen at a table:

1) DM sets hard limit of one PB creature at a time, or there will be retaliation. Player decides to ignore what the DM says, and her wizard binds five Osyluth in the same day. A month later, player gets attacked by a hit squad of two Gelugon, four Osyluth, and twelve Barbazu. Said hit squad opens by dimensional anchor just on the wizard, allowing rest of party to flee if they don't want to die protecting their idiot party member, but guaranteeing that the wizard is gonna get ganked.

2) DM sets soft limit of two or three PB creatures at a time, with hard limit of ten. Exceeding the soft limit means there might be retaliation, and exceeding the hard limit means there definitely will be. Player does as above (which is above the soft limit but below the hard one), and DM reacts as above.

3) As in the second example, but instead the DM does nothing.... for a while. Secretly, he rolls a d% for every in-game week, and consults a complicated chart based off number of creatures bound recently, types of creatures bound, etc. to determine what retaliation, if any, will later take place. After twelve in-game weeks of consistently cycling through Osyluth, the DM finally rolls high enough on the chart for serious retaliation. A smaller hit squad (the Osyluth's Gelugon superior, plus two to three Osyluths backing it up) attacks, with fairly standard tactics.

What would people's reactions be as the player in each of these scenarios? Do any of them seem like the DM is being a ****? On the flip side, if you did this as a DM, what reactions would you expect/find acceptable from the player?
The first scenario triggers an easily defeatable encounter that will grant tons of xp to the wizard and his party thus making the wizard keep using planar binding solely for getting more of those encounters and hoping to derail the campaign to make it based on outsiders(which will happen since the gm will start focusing on making huger encounters with more outsiders that are stronger).

[liquidformat]

The first scenario triggers an easily defeatable encounter that will grant tons of xp to the wizard and his party thus making the wizard keep using planar binding solely for getting more of those encounters and hoping to derail the campaign to make it based on outsiders(which will happen since the gm will start focusing on making huger encounters with more outsiders that are stronger).

'Easily defeatable' is a function of optimization level and ecl at the table so I don't think taking the exact numeric breakdown of the examples is that useful. Another way of looking at this is say I create a chart for rolling d100 1-50 is no retaliation 51-85 is level appropriate to slightly hard, 86-99 is very hard to questionable, and 100 is pretty much SOL that might turn into a side-quest if handled correctly. I would find that to be reasonable.

[Calthropstu]

If a DM ever did to me what Calthropstu is suggesting, I would slowly pour out my beverage on his gaming table and books, spit in his face on the way out his door, and urinate on his lawn before driving away, never to return. Luckily, in my 35 years of gaming I have never had to deal with a DM that bad.

Taking all a PCs gear + their player agency to punish them for doing something you don’t like isn’t the same as killing them. It’s much worse than killing them. Killing a PC is probably a level lost, maybe some gold. At worst it’s reroll a new PC. Taking all their gear that they built up over, presumably, months if not years is just mean.

Enjoy prison. And the hospital. The moment you started that, everyone at my table would put you down. No joke. That is assault, destruction of property, indecent exposure and prolly some other criminal charges to boot. I know you probably wouldn't actually do these things, but seriously, no one I know in the gaming community here would stand for that. Plus, since I generally run my games at the local game store, enjoy being banned for life.

I've had plenty of characters stripped of resources. You go out and hunt more. In fact, waking up robbed of all your belongings is literally one of the most used tropes in game campaigns. You look for work, acquire a loan, steal some stuff, go out and kill something smaller than normal and loot it, waylay a random passerby... Just because you don't have your "Adamantine +1 flaming keen longsword" doesn't mean you can no longer adventure. Pick up a club and bash a monster's face in.

"An ogre is using a maul of the titans" should not be outside the realm of reason just because "Sundering is a terrible mechanic and smashing our stuff should be out of bounds." Boo hoo, grow up. It's a game. Attacking your resources is literally the first thing any intelligent villain would do. A smart player would look at the demon demanding all of his stuff and say "Surely you jest lord demon. How can I perform the service for you if I am left without the resources to perform such tasks?" Then talk the demon down to taking a more appropriate payment.

As I have stated in previous threads, my Sunday group and I have a combined total of over a century of gaming experience. All of us tend to agree with each other on this particular issue. Planar Binding cheese (or wish cheese) would universally lead to character destruction no matter which of us was running.

[Calthropstu]

It is possible that your time and self respect are of minimal value. Mine are not.

You are playing a game where combat exists. Combat bears a risk of death. If you feel so strongly about your character never suffering negative consequences, don't fight anything. Ever. Walk around buying and selling flowers. Then promptly leave the game because no one else wants to play that.

Your statements are the equivalent of flipping the risk board when you start losing. Don't do that.

[unseenmage]

..

As I have stated in previous threads, my Sunday group and I have a combined total of over a century of gaming experience. All of us tend to agree with each other on this particular issue. Planar Binding cheese (or wish cheese) would universally lead to character destruction no matter which of us was running.
So it's an agreed upon house rule. Good to know.

Might've helped mitigate some of the backlash to your statement had you front loaded it with this info.

I'm glad you have such a robust group. Not all do. Many of us are perennially LFG or get to play with our regular group so rarely that we might as well claim not to play anymore.

The idea that a newly introduced GM would wreck a character, presumably one that was a lot of work to build, instead of properly communicating their expectations could be part of the issue here.

[Calthropstu]

So it's an agreed upon house rule. Good to know.

Might've helped mitigate some of the backlash to your statement had you front loaded it with this info.

I'm glad you have such a robust group. Not all do. Many of us are perennially LFG or get to play with our regular group so rarely that we might as well claim not to play anymore.

The idea that a newly introduced GM would wreck a character, presumably one that was a lot of work to build, instead of properly communicating their expectations could be part of the issue here.

I maintain it's not a house rule. It's literally written into the spell.

[unseenmage]

I maintain it's not a house rule. It's literally written into the spell.

But you do get that offering up your idea of GM vs PC justice as if it's a solution to the problem when it's actually an agreement with your group is problematic, right?

You do get that the way you play is not the way everyone should play?

[SLOTHRPG95]

The first scenario triggers an easily defeatable encounter that will grant tons of xp to the wizard and his party thus making the wizard keep using planar binding solely for getting more of those encounters and hoping to derail the campaign to make it based on outsiders(which will happen since the gm will start focusing on making huger encounters with more outsiders that are stronger).


'Easily defeatable' is a function of optimization level and ecl at the table so I don't think taking the exact numeric breakdown of the examples is that useful. Another way of looking at this is say I create a chart for rolling d100 1-50 is no retaliation 51-85 is level appropriate to slightly hard, 86-99 is very hard to questionable, and 100 is pretty much SOL that might turn into a side-quest if handled correctly. I would find that to be reasonable.

Yeah, the assumption here was supposed to be that for this party's level of optimization (and also character level), the large hit squad would be the polar opposite of "easily defeatable," i.e. almost certainly insurmountable. Hence bothering to put in that other players (not the Wizard) would be allowed to flee, since I think how people reacted to the scenario would be different if the result was TPK vs. just the offending player killed. And also since the devils don't have beef with the other party members, they're just making an example of the wizard. But yes, the exact breakdown was just based off of an earlier discussion upthread, feel free to substitute monsters mutatis mutandis to make the example work in your head.

So, liquidformat, you'd say generally speaking that something like the third scenario should be acceptable from the player's perspective?

[liquidformat]

Yeah, the assumption here was supposed to be that for this party's level of optimization (and also character level), the large hit squad would be the polar opposite of "easily defeatable," i.e. almost certainly insurmountable. Hence bothering to put in that other players (not the Wizard) would be allowed to flee, since I think how people reacted to the scenario would be different if the result was TPK vs. just the offending player killed. And also since the devils don't have beef with the other party members, they're just making an example of the wizard. But yes, the exact breakdown was just based off of an earlier discussion upthread, feel free to substitute monsters mutatis mutandis to make the example work in your head.

So, liquidformat, you'd say generally speaking that something like the third scenario should be acceptable from the player's perspective?

Ya the spell says there are risks in casting it, it just leaves what that means up to the DM so anything the DM chooses is RAW or at least RAI in my opinion and not house rule. (which is why this is such an issue)

At any other time in the game if you as a PC decided you were going to start kidnapping powerful npcs and forcing them to be your slaves there would be major in game consequences, why are people getting offended by the idea that there might be consequences of doing the same with magic. I mean for crying out loud the spell itself explicitly says it is dangerous and there might be revenge...

[smetzger]

Ya the spell says there are risks in casting it, it just leaves what that means up to the DM so anything the DM chooses is RAW or at least RAI in my opinion and not house rule. (which is why this is such an issue)

At any other time in the game if you as a PC decided you were going to start kidnapping powerful npcs and forcing them to be your slaves there would be major in game consequences, why are people getting offended by the idea that there might be consequences of doing the same with magic. I mean for crying out loud the spell itself explicitly says it is dangerous and there might be revenge...

We are not offended, it is a perfectly fine house rule.

However, I don't think you have given evidence strong enough to support that it is RAW. Take a look at Robo's original thread. Therein is presented a well thought out argument that the spell's RAW has very little actual danger if you take the necessary precautions. Now if you don't take those precautions....well... then yeah it is dangerous.
If you were to present a well thought out counter argument I am all ears.

[Cosi]

1) DM sets hard limit of one PB creature at a time, or there will be retaliation. Player decides to ignore what the DM says, and her wizard binds five Osyluth in the same day. A month later, player gets attacked by a hit squad of two Gelugon, four Osyluth, and twelve Barbazu. Said hit squad opens by dimensional anchor just on the wizard, allowing rest of party to flee if they don't want to die protecting their idiot party member, but guaranteeing that the wizard is gonna get ganked.

The player violated an out-of-game restriction. That should result in the DM talking to them out-of-game. If your group decides "no Eberron content", and you show up with a Dragonmarked Heir, the appropriate response from the DM is not to have a Daelkyr kill your PC.

[Hackulator]

The player violated an out-of-game restriction. That should result in the DM talking to them out-of-game. If your group decides "no Eberron content", and you show up with a Dragonmarked Heir, the appropriate response from the DM is not to have a Daelkyr kill your PC.

The restriction was not "you can't do this" it was "you can do this but there will be consequences, be aware". They then chose to do it.

[Cosi]

The restriction was not "you can't do this" it was "you can do this but there will be consequences, be aware". They then chose to do it.

Well, then the DM failed to communicate that "consequences" means "rocks fall, you die" instead of anything resembling good DMing. Again, there is a correct way to do this, and there is a way to do this that involves ganking PCs with encounters they can't possibly handle.

I'm not against demons seeking revenge. I'm against that being used as an excuse for bad DMing. Having demons seek revenge can be a great plot hook, and can provide character to encounters, or give PCs a reason to care about their enemies. Having the PCs attract the ire of a demon lord can be a reasonable plot point if it's handled well. But no one on the "consequences" side wants to do anything like that. They don't want to use the spell to make the game interesting, they want to find out how much warning they have to give before they are allowed to arbitrarily kill their PCs.

There's no possible sequence of events where "overwhelming encounter that specifically targets you to kill you/force you on a mission/steal your stuff" is the right thing for a DM to do. Stop looking for one and start communicating with your players.

[Hackulator]

Well, then the DM failed to communicate that "consequences" means "rocks fall, you die" instead of anything resembling good DMing. Again, there is a correct way to do this, and there is a way to do this that involves ganking PCs with encounters they can't possibly handle.

I'm not against demons seeking revenge. I'm against that being used as an excuse for bad DMing. Having demons seek revenge can be a great plot hook, and can provide character to encounters, or give PCs a reason to care about their enemies. Having the PCs attract the ire of a demon lord can be a reasonable plot point if it's handled well. But no one on the "consequences" side wants to do anything like that. They don't want to use the spell to make the game interesting, they want to find out how much warning they have to give before they are allowed to arbitrarily kill their PCs.

There's no possible sequence of events where "overwhelming encounter that specifically targets you to kill you/force you on a mission/steal your stuff" is the right thing for a DM to do. Stop looking for one and start communicating with your players.

Dude, are you even reading the posts?

[Calthropstu]

Well, then the DM failed to communicate that "consequences" means "rocks fall, you die" instead of anything resembling good DMing. Again, there is a correct way to do this, and there is a way to do this that involves ganking PCs with encounters they can't possibly handle.

I'm not against demons seeking revenge. I'm against that being used as an excuse for bad DMing. Having demons seek revenge can be a great plot hook, and can provide character to encounters, or give PCs a reason to care about their enemies. Having the PCs attract the ire of a demon lord can be a reasonable plot point if it's handled well. But no one on the "consequences" side wants to do anything like that. They don't want to use the spell to make the game interesting, they want to find out how much warning they have to give before they are allowed to arbitrarily kill their PCs.

There's no possible sequence of events where "overwhelming encounter that specifically targets you to kill you/force you on a mission/steal your stuff" is the right thing for a DM to do. Stop looking for one and start communicating with your players.

You call it bad dming, I call it proper dming. Just because you will throw a hissy fit over it doesn't make it "bad dming." Just means you don't like it.

If I walk into a grocery store and take a hostage, I'm not walking out of that store with my freedom intact. I will be swarmed with an overwhelming encounter ala dozens of police. Similar principle applies. The demon is intelligent. It's not going to come at you with "challenge level apropriate." It's coming at you with anything and everything it can muster.

That means when it does come at you, it will do so with surprise, overwhelming numbers, overwhelming force and powerful backup just in case. That is consequnce. Whether you like it or not, that is reality and it is also fantasy.