Planar Binding and Aggressive Negotiations

[ayvango]

I'm not sure how magic circle against evil works in the diagram mode. Does it allow wizard to attack bound creature with spells? Could the creature retaliate with spell-like abilities?

[Helluin]

Does it allow wizard to attack bound creature with spells?

Yes, I believe so. Interestingly, almost all the DMs I know rule that attacking a bound creature immediately disrupts the circle and sets it free. I haven’t found any supporting rules. Maybe it’s hidden somewhere in some FAQ, or maybe it’s a vestigial rule from earlier editions? Can someone enlighten me?


Could the creature retaliate with spell-like abilities?

Depends. A simple Magic Circle cannot contain offensive SLAs, but in the spell description it mentions a special diagram that you can draw you enhance the circle, and this option creates a circle that’s impervious to the SLAs originating from the bound creature.

[OgresAreCute]

Yes, I believe so. Interestingly, almost all the DMs I know rule that attacking a bound creature immediately disrupts the circle and sets it free. I haven’t found any supporting rules. Maybe it’s hidden somewhere in some FAQ, or maybe it’s a vestigial rule from earlier editions? Can someone enlighten me?



Depends. A simple Magic Circle cannot contain offensive SLAs, but in the spell description it mentions a special diagram that you can draw you enhance the circle, and this option creates a circle that’s impervious to the SLAs originating from the bound creature.

I think the idea is that "The creature is immediately released if anything disturbs the diagram—even a straw laid across it." means that a ray passing above the diagram breaks the circle or something? I'd say it's obvious only something disturbing the drawn diagram on the ground would break the spell, but I dunno.

[Kaleph]

I think the idea is that "The creature is immediately released if anything disturbs the diagram—even a straw laid across it." means that a ray passing above the diagram breaks the circle or something? I'd say it's obvious only something disturbing the drawn diagram on the ground would break the spell, but I dunno.

The question is, if for example a drop of blood of the trapped creature counts as disturbing the diagram. Or a drop falling from an orb of acid? The vibrations produced by a sonic spell?

The way the spell description is written really means "try to be creative at your own risk, since we are explicitly allowing the DM to be an ass".

On the internet you may find this quote (reportedly from J. Jacobs), which somehow sounds like a reasonable criterium for a DM: "You can cast any spell you want at the outsider in the circle, but those that create physical effects that cross the circle would let the monster out. What entails 'breaking the circle' is left to the GM, but you could certainly argue that the beam of black energy from a ray like enervation counts, or even the faint mist produced by mind fog.".

[Psyren]

If you want to attack them, you should probably stick with non-physical ranged debuffs like Crushing Despair.

I'd be fine with rays not disturbing the circle as long as they're non-physical - so something like Ray of Exhaustion would be fine, but Disintegrate or Polar Ray could risk disrupting it, especially if you miss.

[ayvango]

Well, the spell description says:


The creature cannot reach across the magic circle, but its ranged attacks (ranged weapons, spells, magical abilities, and the like) can.
The creature can attack any target it can reach with its ranged attacks except for the circle itself.

So negotiations would definitely begin with spell exchange. The side offered more precious spells would apparently win the deal.

[Psyren]

Well, the spell description says:



So negotiations would definitely begin with spell exchange. The side offered more precious spells would apparently win the deal.

This is why you use the diagram, which blocks all this. Magic Circle:


You can add a special diagram (a two-dimensional bounded figure with no gaps along its circumference, augmented with various magical sigils) to make the magic circle more secure. Drawing the diagram by hand takes 10 minutes and requires a DC 20 Spellcraft check. The DM makes this check secretly. If the check fails, the diagram is ineffective. You can take 10 when drawing the diagram if you are under no particular time pressure to complete the task. This task also takes 10 full minutes. If time is no factor at all, and you devote 3 hours and 20 minutes to the task, you can take 20.
...
A creature cannot use its spell resistance against a magic circle prepared with a diagram, and none of its abilities or attacks can cross the diagram.

[ayvango]

So the simplest strategy is to turn on antimagic, march out of the diagram, turn off antimagic and engage in the melee.

[Psyren]

So the simplest strategy is to turn on antimagic, march out of the diagram, turn off antimagic and engage in the melee.

Antimagic would interfere with the circle, so no. They cannot disturb it even indirectly, which suppression would do.

[ayvango]

Antimagic leave the circle as is. Antimagic switches off magic effects in the area. But magic continues to work and restore effects once antimagic field goes off.

[Psyren]

Antimagic leave the circle as is. Antimagic switches off magic effects in the area. But magic continues to work and restore effects once antimagic field goes off.

A magic circle is both the physical diagram and the spell effect. You can't mess with either one, otherwise they could simply dispel it and walk out.

Magic continues to work while suppressed, but that would still count as "indirect."

[ayvango]

A magic circle is both the physical diagram and the spell effect. You can't mess with either one, otherwise they could simply dispel it and walk out.

Wording says "the creature itself cannot disturb the diagram either directly or indirectly". It says nothing about disturbing Magic Circle spell effect. Only diagram itself couldn't be messed.

[Psyren]

Wording says "the creature itself cannot disturb the diagram either directly or indirectly". It says nothing about disturbing Magic Circle spell effect. Only diagram itself couldn't be messed.

PHB 249: "The trapped creature can do nothing that disturbs the circle, directly or indirectly, but other creatures can."

[noob]

PHB 249: "The trapped creature can do nothing that disturbs the circle, directly or indirectly, but other creatures can."
so if a pit fiend carries an imp all day and then gets bound the imp carried by the pit fiend can just break the circle?

[ayvango]

so if a pit fiend carries an imp all day and then gets bound the imp carried by the pit fiend can just break the circle?
Yet another magnificent familiar application.

[Psyren]

so if a pit fiend carries an imp all day and then gets bound the imp carried by the pit fiend can just break the circle?

Are we shifting the goalposts to just making PB no longer function now? :smalltongue:
In any event, PB makes you specify what you're targeting, so if all you called was a Pit Fiend that's what you'd get - there's no way for them to "bring an imp" unless the caster asked for one. (And even if they did, they would be subject to the spell as well.)

[noob]

Are we shifting the goalposts to just making PB no longer function now? :smalltongue:
In any event, PB makes you specify what you're targeting, so if all you called was a Pit Fiend that's what you'd get - there's no way for them to "bring an imp" unless the caster asked for one. (And even if they did, they would be subject to the spell as well.)

it was in inventory.
Then after the pit fiend is summoned it lets the imp get out of inventory
Unless planar binding also strips of all equipment the summoned creatures.

[Crake]

it was in inventory.
Then after the pit fiend is summoned it lets the imp get out of inventory
Unless planar binding also strips of all equipment the summoned creatures.

Creatures don't count as inventory, unless it's locked in an extradimensional space. That said, if you had an imp familiar, and there's that one belt that lets your familiar hop inside as per familiar pocket, then yeah, the imp would be brought along via planar binding.

[Psyren]

it was in inventory.
Then after the pit fiend is summoned it lets the imp get out of inventory
Unless planar binding also strips of all equipment the summoned creatures.

I don't see anything about "inventory" in either the spell or the Pit Fiend entry, so this would be a DM conversation.

You could probably make a custom Pit Fiend with a familiar pocket, but the player is unlikely to ask for it.

[ayvango]

Trapped Pit Fiend could cast planar binding himself. Now he has buddy within the circle who could easily destroy it.

[tiercel]

it was in inventory.
Then after the pit fiend is summoned it lets the imp get out of inventory
Unless planar binding also strips of all equipment the summoned creatures.

I’d think that if the imp were to somehow count as “inventory,” then anything it did would be restricted as much as any other the pit fiend’s actions (that is, if the imp is really inventory then its actions are no more separate from the pit fiend’s than if it used a flaming sword +1).

If the imp counts as a separate creature, able to take actions that don’t count as the pit fiend’s, then it doesn’t appear (since it wasn’t a target, and the Planar Binding spells can’t target multiple targets that aren’t all the same kind of creature).

I don’t think it’s reasonable to say that an imp counts BOTH as inventory for the purpose of being carried along, not as an extra (illegal) target of the spell AND as a separate entity able to take independent action against a properly drawn diagram.

I’d rule that even a pit fiend with a familiar pocket would be summoned with its inventory (i.e. the pocket itself and other actual items) intact, but that the imp would either (a) count as an actual familiar, i.e. “part of” the pit fiend and subject to all the same restrictions or (b) if it doesn’t actually count as a familiar/part of the pit fiend, it doesn’t appear and is just left behind, despite having been in the pocket.

[Psyren]

Trapped Pit Fiend could cast planar binding himself. Now he has buddy within the circle who could easily destroy it.

I don't see that in their statblock etiher. And even if it were there, that's still the Pit Fiend using its own magic to indirectly disturb the circle.

If you're looking for ways a savvy Pit Fiend can beat PB, one thing they could probably do is make some kind of arrangement to have an imp or other underling locate their binding circle on the Material Plane and either lie in wait ahead of time, or try to get there after they've been called, and disrupt the circle externally that way. That should keep a careless or overconfident caster from being able to keep one bound indefinitely. But this also presents an opportunity for counterplay, because the caster can put security in and around their "binding chamber" to defeat that strategy too. In short, you can use this if your players try to keep a Pit Fiend bound for weeks/months, but if they at least have a chance to get a service out of it in less time.

[thelastorphan]

The directly or indirectly clause is very open ended. Does convincing someone to disrupt the circle count as indirectly disturbing it? If not where is the line?

[Psyren]

The directly or indirectly clause is very open ended. Does convincing someone to disrupt the circle count as indirectly disturbing it? If not where is the line?

I draw it in a couple of places:

1) The clause forbids disruptive actions ("the creature can DO nothing...") so simply talking their way free is totally fine. Furthermore, PCs are immune to Diplomacy and have no attitudes to Intimidate, so it has to convince them through sheer roleplay/Bluff (e.g. "I already used my Wish") - both of which enable counterplay, which is what you ultimately want.

2) Most things the subject does before the spell is cast is fair game (after all, the circle doesn't exist yet, so none of its rules can apply.) This includes stuff like the "hey imp, if I go missing from Hell for a long while, check the Material Plane for me, and I'll owe you a favor" arrangements. This puts a ticking clock on the PCs actions without subverting their agency entirely, which is again what you want.

3) The "impossible demands or unreasonable commands" clause is similarly open-ended, so there is quite a lot you can have the creature say no to. Even if the players have a completely foolproof trap, this clause can put a ceiling of sorts on the binding spell's power. This combines with the other two to keep the PCs from simply getting anything they could ever want in a couple of rounds with a high roll. Once again, counterplay and agency, both things you want.



TL;DR - the idea is that binding shouldn't be 100% effective indefinitely on either side. There's still a lot of daylight there for it to be useful, but only if the PCs are careful. And if they get careless, there's room for the DM to teach them an important lesson.

[Crake]

You could probably make a custom Pit Fiend with a familiar pocket, but the player is unlikely to ask for it.

Whether the player asks for it or not is irrelevant, since the player gets a random pit fiend from the planes. The DM gets to decide if it has a familiar pocket, not the player. The question really then becomes: What's the likelihood of a pit fiend having an imp familiar for getting him out of magic circles? If planar binding is a common thing, then it would make sense for it to be a common counter. Otherwise, I'd probably roll a D% and if it lands on a 1, then.... well, that player's in for a surprise

[Psyren]

Whether the player asks for it or not is irrelevant, since the player gets a random pit fiend from the planes. The DM gets to decide if it has a familiar pocket, not the player.

Very true! But it would be pretty contrived for me as a player if I kept getting custom versions of a monster instead of what's in the Monster Manual. It would essentially be a soft ban on the spell, and a fairly passive-aggressive one at that.

Edit to your edit:


The question really then becomes: What's the likelihood of a pit fiend having an imp familiar for getting him out of magic circles? If planar binding is a common thing, then it would make sense for it to be a common counter. Otherwise, I'd probably roll a D% and if it lands on a 1, then.... well, that player's in for a surprise

I'd have to say that even a random 1% chance of the spell failing (and not just failing, but being an active detriment) - regardless of any precautions I take as a player or the reasonableness of my ask - wouldn't feel particularly good.

And you also have to define "common counter." Hell and the Abyss are infinite in size. If even a million fiends do this, if that many are even willing to - what are the odds of landing on one that has? Is the inconvenience of being beholden to an imp (immortal and craving advancement) that much better than being briefly beholden to a mortal, especially one whose desires you have a chance at twisting and perverting?

And that's putting aside we don't even know if this works. Again, Planar Binding brings over what you target - not their familiars, not their inventory (which monsters don't even have), not their cohorts etc.

[Crake]

Very true! But it would be pretty contrived for me as a player if I kept getting custom versions of a monster instead of what's in the Monster Manual. It would essentially be a soft ban on the spell, and a fairly passive-aggressive one at that.

Edit to your edit:



I'd have to say that even a random 1% chance of the spell failing (and not just failing, but being an active detriment) - regardless of any precautions I take as a player or the reasonableness of my ask - wouldn't feel particularly good.

And you also have to define "common counter." Hell and the Abyss are infinite in size. If even a million fiends do this, if that many are even willing to - what are the odds of landing on one that has? Is the inconvenience of being beholden to an imp (immortal and craving advancement) that much better than being briefly beholden to a mortal, especially one whose desires you have a chance at twisting and perverting?

And that's putting aside we don't even know if this works. Again, Planar Binding brings over what you target - not their familiars, not their inventory (which monsters don't even have), not their cohorts etc.

Well, pit fiends qualify for obtain familiar by nature of their CL from SLAs, and then by extension, improved familiar, then the belt of many pockets which they could easily obtain with their 1/year wish eons ago if they don't want to go out and just buy one. It doesn't even have to be an imp, just a familiar of any sort, could just be a fiendish rat for all that it matters. So all the counter would cost the pit fiend is 2 feat, 1 if it just gets a regular familiar instead of an improved one. Arguably, this feat could even be swapped in and out with their wish SLA if planar binding becomes less common. The 1% thing was again, for a setting where planar binding is fairly common. I don't think most settings have wizards capable of casting planar binding to the point where it's considered common, it would have to be a fairly high magic society, but if it was so common, then it would only make sense for fiends to develop a counter to such an annoyance.

That said, I don't think planar binding should really be risk free, and the lore on the spell suggests that even the most meticulous wizard can screw it up. Just look at expedition to the ruins of castle greyhawk. In the mages guild, there's a bunch of mages trying to summon a demon, and it turns out that there was a beetle that was accidentally painted over with the summoning circle, and when it moved away, it disturbed the circle. This was in a secure mages guild, done by a professional wizard, who supposedly knew what they were doing. And yet they still screwed it up. So yeah, I know planar binding lets you do all this stuff to basically guarantee that the creature is completely trapped, but in my games, use it at your own risk. You never know what might happen that will screw over the circle.

As an aside, regarding the custom creatures thing, I actually do it quite often, especially if I expect said summon to become a recurring character, either because they're gonna hunt the players, or because I expect the players to summon them a few times over the course of the game. Plus, lets be honest, fiends are just as varied as humans, I think it's silly to expect every pit fiend or every marilith to all have the same feats as one another.

[Tvtyrant]

I think the appropriate way to deal with binding (which is extremely powerful) is to talk to your DM/Player about expectations instead of trying to find the perfect RAW answer. Chain-gating is perfectly RAW, and completely broken.

Personally I think the intelligence and importance of the creature dictates how it responds to being bound. A Pit Fiend is going to be busy fighting the Blood War or playing politics between the Dukes, if the binder is of sufficient power it politely asks that they contact one of its vizier devils (giving the caster the true name) to make any deals, and set up an official audience. If they are weaker it laughs at them from outside the cage; either way its retrieval squad of Remmanon (MMV) planeshift then teleport to it in about ten minutes to let it out. A Pit Fiend will never make a deal while in a Planar Binding.

If the Pit Fiend eventually becomes buddies with you (it decides you are sufficiently evil and powerful enough to warrant major attention) your meetings with it become a meeting with its boss, one of the Aspects of a Duke, and then eventually a Duke in high epic.

Bind a Vizier Devil and it happily makes you a good deal, and if you are sufficiently impressive it offers to set up a meeting with someone higher up the chain of command. Lots of other Devils are specialists and will want you to talk to their boss before they sign anything; a torture devil is too busy to torture mortals without triplicate.

[Psyren]

Crake, I agree with you 100% that binding shouldn't be risk-free. But I strongly think that blindsiding the players with customized monsters is the worst possible way to go about adding that risk. There's no counterplay, agency or planning there at all - it's just a crapshoot where the player has no idea what they'll get. Maybe they'll get a fiend they can keep confined for two weeks, maybe two days, maybe two rounds if he immediately wrecks the circle with whatever custom thing you gave him. Maybe they'll get something that has the same name as the thing they wanted, but with completely different/unexpected abilities. I see these as no different than banning the spell.

I also disagree with your take on planar diversity; fiends are absolutely not as varied as humans, or any other mortal race. Devils especially follow rather strict templates as they get promoted or demoted. Variation in Baator isn't just unlikely, it's actively discouraged.

[ayvango]

I don't see that in their statblock etiher. And even if it were there, that's still the Pit Fiend using its own magic to indirectly disturb the circle.

Wish could be used to immitate planar binding.

The Pit Fiend using no magic to disturb the circle it is entirely other creating doing. If the Pit Fiend could convince someone to disturb circle it would not count as his doing. How could the calling mage make the Pit Fiend free after agreement? If convincing someone count as disturbing circle then the summoner could not disturb the circle either.

[Crake]

Crake, I agree with you 100% that binding shouldn't be risk-free. But I strongly think that blindsiding the players with customized monsters is the worst possible way to go about adding that risk. There's no counterplay, agency or planning there at all - it's just a crapshoot where the player has no idea what they'll get. Maybe they'll get a fiend they can keep confined for two weeks, maybe two days, maybe two rounds if he immediately wrecks the circle with whatever custom thing you gave him. Maybe they'll get something that has the same name as the thing they wanted, but with completely different/unexpected abilities. I see these as no different than banning the spell.

I also disagree with your take on planar diversity; fiends are absolutely not as varied as humans, or any other mortal race. Devils especially follow rather strict templates as they get promoted or demoted. Variation in Baator isn't just unlikely, it's actively discouraged.

I believe that yes, if you randomly bind, it should be a crapshoot. On the other hand, if you gather information and learn about a particular creature, learn it's strengths, it's weaknesses, it's vices, ways it can be tempted, or bribed, or intimidated, learn what it's strengths and weaknesses are, and THEN summon it, you'll be much better off.

And sure, maybe your argument about variation in baator could be make sense, but for demons the exact opposite argument could be employed, but there is plenty of precedence of official material with devils not being flat stock-standard, sporting different feats, or even class levels, over advancing along the infernal heirarchy.

[RoboEmperor]

Half tempted to join the discussion, but since this is a discussion I had a billion times, i don't want to. But watching people butcher planar binding is also painful.

Before I begin, lets all give Psyren a hand for his admirable work in this thread. This isn't sarcasm. He said what I usually say in a non-aggressive-non-flamey-and-therefore-legible manner. I could learn a thing or two from him.


I believe that yes, if you randomly bind, it should be a crapshoot.

That's you trying to twist the game into working how YOU want it to work, not how it actually works. Planar Binding is a spell used to make outsiders your complete *****. NPCs do it all the time. I'm sure I don't have to unload my giant list of quotes here too.

The risk is spelled out. If you **** up, the outsider will TPK you. That is IF you **** up. If you don't, Planar Binding is super powerful. You think the risk is too little compared to the reward? Tough. That's how the spell works.

The risk of the spell is that your slave can out maneuver you mentally and totally **** you over.

There is a 0% chance of WotC making the spell give more than a 5% chance of the outsider breaking free when you did nothing wrong. So you doing all of this is you betraying WotC's intent so what you think should be isn't correct except in your own homebrew setting.


Wish could be used to immitate planar binding.

Wish lets you teleport outside the magic circle.

There's a never ending supply of people who don't like Planar Binding and try to twist anything and everything they can get their hands on to make the spell dysfunctional. There's the people who say you can dispel a magic circle. There's the people who say casting a spell on the creature breaks the circle when the spell directly shows an example of a spell cast on the creature NOT breaking the circle. There's the people who say the creature can summon monsters and have those summoned monsters disrupt the circle. All of this is wrong. The only way PB fails is either by Wish or by the incompetence of the spellcaster. Literally nothing else can make PB fail.

[Crake]

That's you trying to twist the game into working how YOU want it to work, not how it actually works.

Planar binding gets a random creature of the kind you specified. If that random creature has a method of escaping your circle 100% of the time.... Like a familiar inside a familiar pocket that they can pop out and have disturb the calling diagram... That's the definition of a crapshoot... By RAW.

[RoboEmperor]

Planar binding gets a random creature of the kind you specified. If that random creature has a method of escaping your circle 100% of the time.... Like a familiar inside a familiar pocket that they can pop out and have disturb the calling diagram... That's the definition of a crapshoot... By RAW.

I get that you're running with the fact that unlike shapechange or gate, PB doesn't say generic creature. But "indirect" is open ended so I can run with that too. A pit fiend having a PB rescue squad couldn't break the circle either because they're rescuing the pit fiend under his orders which is by definition, indirect. So a familiar doesn't do jack.

And if we don't go this overly legalistic approach, you bind a generic no name creature from the MM.

[Crake]

I get that you're running with the fact that unlike shapechange or gate, PB doesn't say generic creature. But "indirect" is open ended so I can run with that too. A pit fiend having a PB rescue squad couldn't break the circle either because they're rescuing the pit fiend under his orders which is by definition, indirect. So a familiar doesn't do jack.

And if we don't go this overly legalistic approach, you bind a generic no name creature from the MM.

Yeah, but you see, the line drawn by "indirect" is set by the DM, not you, because by that logic, we could also say that the fiend can never agree to anything the caster asks, because doing so would result in the caster breaking the circle so that the fiend can actually perform the task, and that's indirectly breaking the circle, thus you've now rendered the spell completely useless.

Whether you bind a generic, no name creature from the MM is up to how interested your DM is with fleshing out characters. As I said earlier, I've fleshed out practically every planar binding summon that has ever been called, they have names, custom feats, i even tend to give them the 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8 array to further flesh them out as individuals. I've had succubi with tome of magic binding feats (naberious' silver tongue on a succubus is a master manipulator), babau with martial training for shadow hand maneuvers, and lilitu with feats that let them grab opponents in their tails without needing the -20 to hold them in their tails without being considered grappled themselves. Now, of course, not all DMs have the time to flesh out NPCs like that, but if you treat them as you would a human NPC, you'll find them much more interesting to DM, and much more memorable as characters.

[RoboEmperor]

Yeah, but you see, the line drawn by "indirect" is set by the DM, not you, because by that logic, we could also say that the fiend can never agree to anything the caster asks, because doing so would result in the caster breaking the circle so that the fiend can actually perform the task, and that's indirectly breaking the circle, thus you've now rendered the spell completely useless.

That's fine because I just need to wait out the duration of the magic circle.


Whether you bind a generic, no name creature from the MM is up to how interested your DM is with fleshing out characters. As I said earlier, I've fleshed out practically every planar binding summon that has ever been called, they have names, custom feats, i even tend to give them the 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8 array to further flesh them out as individuals. I've had succubi with tome of magic binding feats (naberious' silver tongue on a succubus is a master manipulator), babau with martial training for shadow hand maneuvers, and lilitu with feats that let them grab opponents in their tails without needing the -20 to hold them in their tails without being considered grappled themselves. Now, of course, not all DMs have the time to flesh out NPCs like that, but if you treat them as you would a human NPC, you'll find them much more interesting to DM, and much more memorable as characters.

I don't have a problem with customized outsiders. I have a problem with outsiders that escape 100% because the DM hates the spell and wants to kill you. As Psyren put it, passive-aggressive soft ban.

You're right that customized outsiders make them more memorable and more enjoyable. And a negotiated Planar Binding is more fun than just slavery from extortion. Not arguing that. But giving a chance of total TPK on the party in an unforseeable and surprising manner or in a way that makes the spell unusable? Hell no.

[Psyren]

I believe that yes, if you randomly bind, it should be a crapshoot. On the other hand, if you gather information and learn about a particular creature, learn it's strengths, it's weaknesses, it's vices, ways it can be tempted, or bribed, or intimidated, learn what it's strengths and weaknesses are, and THEN summon it, you'll be much better off.

And sure, maybe your argument about variation in baator could be make sense, but for demons the exact opposite argument could be employed, but there is plenty of precedence of official material with devils not being flat stock-standard, sporting different feats, or even class levels, over advancing along the infernal heirarchy.

Then why have statblocks at all? This is frankly a ridiculous mindset, and one that would never darken any table I run. You do you.


Planar binding gets a random creature of the kind you specified. If that random creature has a method of escaping your circle 100% of the time.... Like a familiar inside a familiar pocket that they can pop out and have disturb the calling diagram... That's the definition of a crapshoot... By RAW.

Like this. Inventing new statblocks out of thin air and having the nerve to call it RAW :smallconfused:

You want to invent a new kind of fiend and make it one that the players can research, that's totally fine. But don't force them to randomly call your special creature when they just wanted the regular model.

[Crake]

That's fine because I just need to wait out the duration of the magic circle.



I don't have a problem with customized outsiders. I have a problem with outsiders that escape 100% because the DM hates the spell and wants to kill you. As Psyren put it, passive-aggressive soft ban.

You're right that customized outsiders make them more memorable and more enjoyable. And a negotiated Planar Binding is more fun than just slavery from extortion. Not arguing that. But giving a chance of total TPK on the party in an unforseeable and surprising manner or in a way that makes the spell unusable? Hell no.

As I said, the chance is only there if you summon a random version of the creature. If you instead spend a bit of time finding and learning about one, you can learn about whether they have any such defense mechanisms or not, and thus prepare for them, perhaps by binding their familiar first, and then them, or by casting anti-life shell or that one spell that stops creatures from approaching who's name I've forgotten, to prevent the familiar from exiting the familiar pocket, or even have someone else prepared to cast a second planar binding once the familiar has popped out of it's pocket to ruin the circle, or maybe just dimension lock the whole area to prevent the familiar from being able to exit the pocket in the first place, etc etc etc, the possibilities are endless, as long as you're informed and prepared.

Also, as I said before, the 1% chance thing would be mainly in a setting where planar binding was incredibly common.


Then why have statblocks at all? This is frankly a ridiculous mindset, and one that would never darken any table I run. You do you.



Like this. Inventing new statblocks out of thin air and having the nerve to call it RAW :smallconfused:

You want to invent a new kind of fiend and make it one that the players can research, that's totally fine. But don't force them to randomly call your special creature when they just wanted the regular model.

I'm not suggesting you give them like, new abilities or anything that would constitute basically creating a new creature. I'm literally talking about customizing feats, and giving them a standard array, one that is suggested in the monster manual if you want to give monsters some degree of customization without altering their CR, or giving them class levels using the advancement rules, though even the fiendish codex suggests that the notion of all demons having the same SLAs is a stupid concept when they're literally chaos incarnate, and that playing around with the SLAs a demon has would make total sense. Obviously not something that extends to devils of course.

[ayvango]

But giving a chance of total TPK on the party in an unforseeable and surprising manner or in a way that makes the spell unusable? Hell no.
That is the purpose of creating the thread. I just would like to foreseen surprising manner for planar binding to TPK the party. Obvious attacks was denied due to wording and the forum kindly pointed me that thing. But less obvious still could go. So you need to lock dimensionally calling circle just after the binding to prevent bound creature from calling his aides. Summoning is no due to "indirect" clause, but calling is still ok.

The big question is how the greedy for power wizard could learn such details from inside the game? There is consent of how spell mechanics works between the players and DM. How could it be tunneled to characters in game?

You have suggested that DM could TPK announcing details the party was unaware of. It always is a temporal solution. DM kills the party, new party started with adjusted strategy. Then DM kills party other way. Third time the party undertake binding it get killed in third manner. But eventually DM would employ all tricks in his sleeve, so now players are aware of all DM tricks, they learned rules and mechanics from trial and error method. All ensuing binding rituals would result in success.

The players knowledge of internal spell mechanics comes to fruition. But how could that metagame knowledge be conferred to characters inside the game? Should the characters know game mechanics of the their world a priori to the point of being aware of surrounding world game nature. Or should the characters discover the rules on their own, each time from fresh point of view despite players had learned the rules long ago?

[ayvango]

Like this. Inventing new statblocks out of thin air and having the nerve to call it RAW :smallconfused:

Why not? Players and NPC should have the equal opportunity. That is the way to make world authentic and breath life into it. If player could DCFS his feats, why not an NPC have the same opportunity? Just pretend that player made a character from the fiend. How would player customize it? The same way you could customize NPC.

[Crake]

The players knowledge of internal spell mechanics comes to fruition. But how could that metagame knowledge be conferred to characters inside the game? Should the characters know game mechanics of the their world a priori to the point of being aware of surrounding world game nature. Or should the characters discover the rules on their own, each time from fresh point of view despite players had learned the rules long ago?

The answer to this question depends on the table. If you want to play your campaign like super meat boy, where trial and error is the name of the game, until you can figure out the right route and timing, then go right ahead, though it does limit the replayability of the game, because you're boiling it down to just the mechanics, and once it's all figured out, then there's no more exploring to do.

On the other hand, if you're using the game as a method of telling stories, then it wouldn't really make sense for the characters to know all the mechanics of the game just because the players do. That said, if you want some sort of method of conferring that information in game, well, that's what libraries and research are for, right? The real question is how readily available that information is in your setting.


Why not? Players and NPC should have the equal opportunity. That is the way to make world authentic and breath life into it. If player could DCFS his feats, why not an NPC have the same opportunity? Just pretend that player made a character from the fiend. How would player customize it? The same way you could customize NPC.

Yeah, that's pretty much the way I view monsters, they're just characters made with a monster race. But I think psyren assumed when I said customize, I meant like, adding random abilities that basically made the creature indistinguishable from others of it's kind. I could be wrong though.

[RoboEmperor]

That is the purpose of creating the thread. I just would like to foreseen surprising manner for planar binding to TPK the party. Obvious attacks was denied due to wording and the forum kindly pointed my that thing. But less obvious still could go. So you need to lock dimensionally calling circle just after the binding to prevent bound creature from calling his aides. Summoning is no due to "indirect" clause, but calling is still ok.

1. You dimensionally lock the calling circle BEFORE the binding. Read the two spells again.
2. Calling is not ok. Nothing beats "indirectly" except Wish. Nothing. The spell is intentionally designed by WotC to make the bound creature completely helpless, trapped, and at your mercy. If we're not going by pure RAW then it is 100% the DM's judgement at which point there's no point in discussing this online unless it's explicitly for your table.

An analogy: You're a naked human trapped in a steel cage and I got a fully loaded machine gun pointed your way. This is planar binding. You die if i want you to die and there's nothing you can do about it. And if you lose the charisma check I get to implant a brain control chip into your head that prevents you from doing anything other than what we agreed on.


You have suggested that DM could TPK announcing details the party was unaware of. It always is a temporal solution. DM kills the party, new party started with adjusted strategy. Then DM kills party other way. Third time the party undertake binding it get killed in third manner. But eventually DM would employ all tricks in his sleeve, so now players are aware of all DM tricks, they learned rules and mechanics from trial and error method. All ensuing binding rituals would result in success.

Exactly. Which is why it's pointless to do this. Either the DM is ok with planar binding and doesn't waste precious game time doing this dance, or the DM is not ok at which point he will make up whatever bogus reason or even resort to fiat to passive-aggressively soft ban the spell.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?573043-Planar-Binding-is-SLAVERY

Give that thread a look. I know it's long and I get ranty but it's there.


The players knowledge of internal spell mechanics comes to fruition. But how could that metagame knowledge be conferred to characters inside the game? Should the characters know game mechanics of the their world a priori to the point of being aware of surrounding world game nature. Or should the characters discover the rules on their own, each time from fresh point of view despite players had learned the rules long ago?

Give your PC a high int score and tell the DM he figured this all out on his own.

[ayvango]

1. You dimensionally lock the calling circle BEFORE the binding. Read the two spells again.
I dimensonally anchor the called creatures. There is nothing that prevents them from calling. So I need to lock entire room in addition to anchoring creatures.


2. Calling is not ok. Nothing beats "indirectly" except Wish. Nothing.
Then the caller itself could not free the creature. What a pointless spell. You should more trust into free will. Coercing someone is not an indirect spell effect.

[RoboEmperor]

I dimensonally anchor the called creatures. There is nothing that prevents them from calling. So I need to lock entire room in addition to anchoring creatures.

If you're operating under your own misconception that calling a creature to break the circle is not indirectly breaking the circle then this is as far as you and I can go in this discussion. As I said the spell is designed to render the outsider completely helpless and at your mercy.

[Crake]

As I said the spell is designed to render the outsider completely helpless and at your mercy.

Nowhere in the spell does it mention helpless, or mercy, what it does mention though, is that the act is dangerous. I'd say those two things are mutually exclusive. A helpless creature at your mercy isn't exactly dangerous, thus the spell cannot be designed to render the creature completely helpless and at your mercy.

[ayvango]

If you're operating under your own misconception that calling a creature to break the circle
I'm calling creature to give him information about my location and conditions. All he do after that is his own free will. Well its behavior could be predicted.

The same thing occurs when as foolish passerby enters mage's laboratory and discover a fiend that promises him ton of gold if the fool disturbs the diagram.

[Psyren]

For the record, I don't think the creature is completely at the binder's mercy either. The "impossible demands and unreasonable commands" clause of the spell still applies even if the binder has taken every precaution perfectly, for example.

With that said:



I'm not suggesting you give them like, new abilities or anything that would constitute basically creating a new creature. I'm literally talking about customizing feats, and giving them a standard array, one that is suggested in the monster manual if you want to give monsters some degree of customization without altering their CR, or giving them class levels using the advancement rules, though even the fiendish codex suggests that the notion of all demons having the same SLAs is a stupid concept when they're literally chaos incarnate, and that playing around with the SLAs a demon has would make total sense. Obviously not something that extends to devils of course.

Giving a monster a whole other creature and extradimensional storage to hide it in is definitely not the same as swapping out a single feat. And you still haven't proven that Planar Binding would even allow this nonsense to work. Spells with a target line target who they say they target.


That is the purpose of creating the thread. I just would like to foreseen surprising manner for planar binding to TPK the party.

Planning to TPK the party is a bit on the ludicrous side, but I already answered this question in post #24. If the binding player is sloppy, greedy, or both, use those suggestions to punish them.


Why not? Players and NPC should have the equal opportunity. That is the way to make world authentic and breath life into it. If player could DCFS his feats, why not an NPC have the same opportunity? Just pretend that player made a character from the fiend. How would player customize it? The same way you could customize NPC.

Tu Quoque Fallacy aside, DCFS is theoretical optimization; I don't allow that in actual games either.

[RoboEmperor]

For the record, I don't think the creature is completely at the binder's mercy either.

In my analogy, if you don't have a machine gun that can penetrate the human's skin then he's not at your mercy. If you do then it is. Your entire leverage is taking advantage of the creature's current predicament.


I'm calling creature to give him information about my location and conditions. All he do after that is his own free will. Well its behavior could be predicted.

The same thing occurs when as foolish passerby enters mage's laboratory and discover a fiend that promises him ton of gold if the fool disturbs the diagram.

None of the outsider's abilities can reach beyond the circle. Targeting a creature on another plane is an ability that goes beyond the circle's boundaries.

[Psyren]

In my analogy, if you don't have a machine gun that can penetrate the human's skin then he's not at your mercy. If you do then it is. Your entire leverage is taking advantage of the creature's current predicament.

There are things you cannot convince some creatures to do no matter what tactics you employ. Those things are "never agreed to" per the spell.

I do agree that you can use magic outside of the binding itself (e.g. compulsion or possession magic) to give orders another way.



None of the outsider's abilities can reach beyond the circle. Targeting a creature on another plane is an ability that goes beyond the circle's boundaries.

Agree completely on this one. If the outsider wants to be surveilled during a binding, it needs to set that up ahead of time, and the PCs can react to that possibility (e.g. by making their binding circle hard to find - featureless room in a basement/cave etc.)

[RoboEmperor]

There are things you cannot convince some creatures to do no matter what tactics you employ. Those things are "never agreed to" per the spell.

I don't disagree. I believe angels cannot be coerced ever. But it doesn't change the fact the angel is helpless (not d&d's in-game term helpless) against you shooting spells at him until he dies if your spells can overcome his SR and other defenses. A caged animal is helpless against a hunter shooting him between the bars and will die if the hunter wants it to die. He may not be able to tame the animal but he can sure as hell kill it.

[Psyren]

I don't disagree. I believe angels cannot be coerced ever. But it doesn't change the fact the angel is helpless (not d&d's in-game term helpless) against you shooting spells at him until he dies if your spells can overcome his SR and other defenses. A caged animal is helpless against a hunter shooting him between the bars and will die if the hunter wants it to die. He may not be able to tame the animal but he can sure as hell kill it.

No argument here; if you bind a creature properly, you can definitely kill it with impunity (provided the means you choose doesn't disrupt the binding.)

I would however say that making a habit of that should have consequences, especially if you're killing powerful or noteworthy beings.

[Crake]

Giving a monster a whole other creature and extradimensional storage to hide it in is definitely not the same as swapping out a single feat. And you still haven't proven that Planar Binding would even allow this nonsense to work. Spells with a target line target who they say they target.

Well, obtain familiar is a feat, so gaining a whole other creature is definitely the same as swapping out a single feat, and the extradimensional space is an item that will come out of their combat gear budget. Means theyll be missing something else they might have had, like a ring of protection or something. As to why it would work with planar binding, well unless youre suggesting that attended gear doesnt come along when you teleport, attended gear isnt specifically mentioned as NOT coming along when you planar bind, and because the familiar is in an extradimensional space that is accessed by a piece of attended gear that the creature has on him at the time, he can just pull the familiar out. Dont think of it as the familiar being summoned too, but rather the portal to the familiars pocket is brought along with the called creature as part of their attended gear.

This is why dimensional lock would help, because it would shut off the portal to the extradimensional space, and the familiar wouldnt be able to come out to interfere with the circle

[Psyren]

Well, obtain familiar is a feat, so gaining a whole other creature is definitely the same as swapping out a single feat,

By this logic, swapping out Toughness for Leadership doesn't change CR either. Sorry, not buying it.


and the extradimensional space is an item that will come out of their combat gear budget.

What rule says monsters get "budgets" that they can shop for gear with?

[Crake]

By this logic, swapping out Toughness for Leadership doesn't change CR either. Sorry, not buying it.

Well, leadership or no, CR is calculated based on creatures and their collective CR. So sure, youd get the xp for a CR whatever fiend you summoned and a CR2 imp, or a CR1/4 ferret or whatever it is. But when you start getting above CR5 or 6ish, even a CR2 imp doesnt increase the encounter level by anything significant.


What rule says monsters get "budgets" that they can shop for gear with?

Their treasure line.

[Psyren]

Well, leadership or no, CR is calculated based on creatures and their collective CR. So sure, youd get the xp for a CR whatever fiend you summoned and a CR2 imp, or a CR1/4 ferret or whatever it is. But when you start getting above CR5 or 6ish, even a CR2 imp doesnt increase the encounter level by anything significant.

My point is that swapping out one feat can change an encounter significantly; not all feats are created equal. Pretending they are is specious.


Their treasure line.

I don't see Familiar Pocket in a Pit Fiend's treasure anywhere, so same question - where are the shopping rules?

[ayvango]

My point is that swapping out one feat can change an encounter significantly; not all feats are created equal. Pretending they are is specious.
So if a player optimize feat selection the character should receive +2 to +3 level adjustment. Another +1 LA for good equipment choice.

I like the way of your thought. Good method to prevent players from overoptimizing their builds. So player could avoid spending days for optimizing builds and could just play with equal outcome from everyone on the table.

[noob]

So if a player optimize feat selection the character should receive +2 to +3 level adjustment. Another +1 LA for good equipment choice.

I like the way of your thought. Good method to prevent players from overoptimizing their builds. So player could avoid spending days for optimizing builds and could just play with equal outcome from everyone on the table.

And the fighter starts getting more and more negative la as they lag down behind the others until the fighter have like -50 negative la because their level 70 fighter is weaker than usual cr 20 monsters.(it was a player who just wanted to roll attack rolls and did not want to bother with magical item choice or with feats and with that mentality you need hundreds of levels to compete with monsters)

[Psyren]

So if a player optimize feat selection the character should receive +2 to +3 level adjustment. Another +1 LA for good equipment choice.

Players don't have a statblock with specific feats and a challenge rating, monsters do. Nice try though.

[RoboEmperor]

So if a player optimize feat selection the character should receive +2 to +3 level adjustment. Another +1 LA for good equipment choice.

I like the way of your thought. Good method to prevent players from overoptimizing their builds. So player could avoid spending days for optimizing builds and could just play with equal outcome from everyone on the table.

If you're the type of person who punishes people for spending their spare time reading the ocean of books in 3.5, then perhaps you should look for a different edition to play in. One with less content for you to ban and punish.

[Crake]

My point is that swapping out one feat can change an encounter significantly; not all feats are created equal. Pretending they are is specious.

I'm not pretending they are? What I was saying though, is that, while it may be a significant change to the encounter, all things considered, it is still just the adjustment of a feat, and not some wildly radical change to the monster itself, giving it some wild new abilities from out of left field.


I don't see Familiar Pocket in a Pit Fiend's treasure anywhere, so same question - where are the shopping rules?

As per the treasure explanation in the MM glossary:


Intelligent creatures that own useful, portable treasure (such as magic items) tend to carry and use these, leaving bulky items at home.

So a pit fiend that has magic items that are useful would carry them around. Then if you choose to use the magic item compendium for generating loot, you can use this following line:


If you don’t like a particular item, feel free to substitute one of the same level or many items of a lower level (as described in Equipping a PC on page 228). Repeat this step if you have multiple items.

Allowing the DM to basically pick whatever items they want within the "budget" for the monster, as determined by their roll on the D%, dictating their starting position with gear.

Alternatively, you could use this line in the treasure section of the DMG to justify hand picking the treasure a monster has:


Finally, you could avoid rolling altogether and choose treasures. For treasures totaling 11,200 gp, you could just invent coins and gems worth 5,000 to 6,000 gp, and choose magic items from Chapter 7: Magic Items to fill the rest of the total.

But really, the fact that you're asking where the rules are saying that "The DM can decide how to allocate the treasure as monster has however he sees fit" is just... silly.

[ayvango]

If someone says that not all feats are equal and would like to adjust monster encounter level due to feat selection than he should haven no complaints about adjusting players LA due to feat selection.

Intelligent monster are intelligent enough to distinct and choose their own path. They have history of choices and planned future. And present between them. So it have status. Some resources may be spent, other obtained, life is never stationary. So actual intelligent monster would differ from each another unless all world is time-stopped.

[Psyren]

If someone says that not all feats are equal and would like to adjust monster encounter level due to feat selection than he should haven no complaints about adjusting players LA due to feat selection.

PCs are neither monsters nor encounters.



As per the treasure explanation in the MM glossary:

If you're going to quote a rule, quote all of it, not just the parts you think help you.


This line reflects how much wealth the creature owns and refers to Table 3–5: Treasure on page 52 of the Dungeon Master’s Guide. In most cases, a creature keeps valuables in its home or lair and has no treasure with it when it travels. Intelligent creatures that own useful, portable treasure (such as magic items) tend to carry and use these, leaving bulky items at home.


Minor, Medium, and Major Magic Items: Refer to the appropriate column on Table 7–1: Random Magic Item Generation and use it to generate the specified number of magic items.


Wondrous items (Tables 7–27, 7–28, and 7–29)

Nothing on any of those tables about "familiar pockets."

We done?

[ayvango]

PC should obey the same rules as NPC. If PC could DCFS then NPC could employ the same trick. Universal laws are just trivial demand for building a consistent world. And it is obvious that NPC with cleric spellcasting could prepare just any spell like player characters with cleric spellcasting despite having spells listed in the monster statistics. (SLA is a different matter).



Wondrous items (Tables 7–27, 7–28, and 7–29)

That is not an excessive list. Some magic items are added in non-OGL books like belt of many pockets in the complete arcane. So unless you ban the book entirely from players and NPC the same, NPC items should be generated from all available books.

[Psyren]

PC should obey the same rules as NPC.

But they demonstrably don't. PCs for example don't have treasure, they have WBL. PCs also don't have encounter level.



That is not an excessive list. Some magic items are added in non-OGL books like belt of many pockets in the complete arcane. So unless you ban the book entirely from players and NPC the same, NPC items should be generated from all available books.

Not saying they can't be, I'm saying the rule he's quoting points to very specific tables, and the item he wants to give to all of his custom/homebrew Pit Fiends isn't there.

[RoboEmperor]

PC should obey the same rules as NPC. If PC could DCFS then NPC could employ the same trick. Universal laws are just trivial demand for building a consistent world. And it is obvious that NPC with cleric spellcasting could prepare just any spell like player characters with cleric spellcasting despite having spells listed in the monster statistics. (SLA is a different matter).

Great idea. First remove every single creature in the game who doesn't have an LA. If they're illegal as PCs then they're illegal as NPCs.

Anyways this is my cue to leave. I have no interest in indulging someone homebrewing and house ruling to keep players down.

[Psyren]

Great idea. First remove every single creature in the game who doesn't have an LA. If they're illegal as PCs then they're illegal as NPCs.

:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:



Anyways this is my cue to leave. I have no interest in indulging someone homebrewing and house ruling to keep players down.

You know what, I think I'll join you.

[Crake]

But they demonstrably don't. PCs for example don't have treasure, they have WBL. PCs also don't have encounter level.



Not saying they can't be, I'm saying the rule he's quoting points to very specific tables, and the item he wants to give to all of his custom/homebrew Pit Fiends isn't there.

Interesting that you completely ignored the parts about treasure generation from the magic item compendium and the DMG.

The section i quoted from the monster manual was specifically pointing out that intelligent monsters will use their treasure if they can, it's not the primary source for treasure generation, so any further argument about what treasure a monster gets based on text in the monster manual is irrelevant. It is the primary source on how to run monsters, however. I then went on to quote sections of rules from the DMG and magic item compendium that detail the generation of treasure that basically say "you can custom select the treasure yourself". Thus: I can custom decide to give a creature a belt of many pockets as part of their treasure, and as an intelligent creature, they will use it to store their familiar inside.

Honestly, the fact that I even need to point to where in the rules it says that as a DM I can give intelligent monsters items that would fit their design, and let them use it, within the bounds of their treasure limit, is just ridiculous. Also, claiming it's homebrew, despite being 100% within RAW to change monsters' feats (page 7 of the monster manual), give them custom treasure (page 54 of the DMG, and page 265 of the magic item compendium), and allow them to use that treasure (page 317 of the monster manual) is pretty disingenuous.

[ayvango]

Great idea. First remove every single creature in the game who doesn't have an LA. If they're illegal as PCs then they're illegal as NPCs.

Then remove all creatures which characteristics omit weight and height. Or just forbid jumping and riding for such creatures.


But they demonstrably don't. PCs for example don't have treasure, they have WBL. PCs also don't have encounter level.

If some data are missed then DM should fill it with his discretion. PC could fight another PC to death, that is not so uncommon event. So DM should have a method to assign appropriate encounter level.



Not saying they can't be, I'm saying the rule he's quoting points to very specific tables, and the item he wants to give to all of his custom/homebrew Pit Fiends isn't there.
The same way all non-OGL spells are out of the list. So your fellow wizards could never buy scrolls or find them in treasures. Unless you accept that expanding spell and other options from non-OGL sources implicitly expands drop and buy lists too.


I have no interest in indulging someone homebrewing and house ruling to keep players down.
To keep players on par with NPC. To keep world living and breathing. You want static training ground with mindless puppets.

[icefractal]

Ok, where the heck is the "creature breaks circle = TPK risk" idea coming from? All the Planar Binding spells have an HD limit, and it isn't high.

To bind a Pit Fiend, for instance, is an 8th level spell. If a 15th level Wizard can't defeat a Pit Fiend under ideal circumstances (as much prep as you want, you choose the battlefield, and you can even bring whatever allies/minions you have), then they should hang up their pointy hat and retire.

[noob]

Ok, where the heck is the "creature breaks circle = TPK risk" idea coming from? All the Planar Binding spells have an HD limit, and it isn't high.

To bind a Pit Fiend, for instance, is an 8th level spell. If a 15th level Wizard can't defeat a Pit Fiend under ideal circumstances (as much prep as you want, you choose the battlefield, and you can even bring whatever allies/minions you have), then they should hang up their pointy hat and retire.

True: you have a dozen of ready non lethal traps pointing at the circle as well as a dozen huge undead with a readied action and the whole zone is under dimensional anchor and there is a setup to collapse the roof and fill the room with non lethal holy water in case all go wrong(does not harms the undead but harms the outsider can not teleport due to dimensional anchor and the setup is managed so that the outsider can not go out without breaking a few walls and you also have a whole bunch of items with nonlethal Celestial Brilliance)
there is a metamagic that makes spells deal non lethal damage and it is useful to make holy water that harms outsiders but not undead.

[Crake]

Ok, where the heck is the "creature breaks circle = TPK risk" idea coming from? All the Planar Binding spells have an HD limit, and it isn't high.

To bind a Pit Fiend, for instance, is an 8th level spell. If a 15th level Wizard can't defeat a Pit Fiend under ideal circumstances (as much prep as you want, you choose the battlefield, and you can even bring whatever allies/minions you have), then they should hang up their pointy hat and retire.

I mean.... It could be a TPK if you just so happen to get so unlucky as to bind a paragon version of the creature you specify by accident.

[Selion]

From a RAW point of view, calling an imp/ally sounds a way to circumvent the spell. You won't even need to give any order or to ask a favor, you just call a random f(r)iend and he will probably free you out of his own free will, the same way you can just politely ask someone to break the circle, if he likes so you are set free.
BTW this sounds uninteresting, so as a DM i wouldn't resort to this kind of actions if not to punish/have a point with one of my players. But if you reach that point the game is already broken. You keep the spell, you keep the RAW, but you have not a game anymore.
There are plenty of role-playing ways to have the spell dangerous without interfering too much with player's agency. Just writing this sentence i figured a demon cult who knows the PCs and is obviously unhappy of them repeatedly treating demons like ******, so you have a plothook and an encounter heavy oriented to make your demon pet useless.
I don't like the idea that a demon is completely at your mercy and that you can just kill him without letting him a chance of retaliation, but i think most human wouldn't fall for such a threat, a proud demon would likely be killed instead of letting a mere human use him like a puppet, so even that is not a big issue.
BTW, if a player just pulls the game toward RAW to make the spell boring and no-risky, i would just change the rules, it's more direct, more efficient and even more fair.
The same way as a player i wouldn't like being tricked with extra-dimensional pouches and matrioska calling, even if faultless by RAW, I would just ask the DM a new rule for the spell so that i could play freely according to the new rules.