[3.5] Can I Take 10 on the Charisma check to agree service when Planar Binding?

[Mr Adventurer]

Per the title. The Charisma check is opposed. The spell says that if you roll a 1, the creature breaks free and attacks you. Are either of these enough to prevent me Taking 10?

[pabelfly]

You can't take 10 when being threatened or distracted (without class abilities, feats, etc.). I'd say that having a conversation that could have life-threatening consequences if you fail would count as being threatened or distracted.

[Mr Adventurer]

It's not failure, only rolling a 1. (You could feasibly roll a 1 and still beat them on the opposed check)

So could I do it in any case if the creature I'd summoned could not feasibly threaten my life?

[animewatcha]

You can always Bind Naberius.

[Ashtagon]

By a strict reading of the rules, it appears it would be allowed.

However, an important point is that this is an opposed skill check, and while you may take 10, the creature isn't necessarily taking 10. Which means even if you do take 10, you aren't guaranteed success (or guaranteed failure).

[Calthropstu]

By a strict reading of the rules, it appears it would be allowed.

However, an important point is that this is an opposed skill check, and while you may take 10, the creature isn't necessarily taking 10. Which means even if you do take 10, you aren't guaranteed success (or guaranteed failure).

Unless you get your charisma bonus to a level where you have +10. I have done such on a character before.

[Ashtagon]

Unless you get your charisma bonus to a level where you have +10. I have done such on a character before.

It's an opposed check. Your goal isn't to hit DC 20. Your goal is to hit whatever the other guy rolled.

[Mr Adventurer]

Yeah, I'm mostly interested in removing the swing where I already have a large advantage (binding elementals, for example).

[Psyren]

An opposed check almost always counts as threatening imo, and one with potential consequences like these even moreso. I would not allow taking 10.

[Uncle Pine]

You can only take 10 on skill checks. Source: glossary.

Take 10
To reduce the chances of failure on certain skill checks by assuming an average die roll result (10 on a d20 roll). You can't take 10 if distracted or threatened, such as during combat.

Take 20
To assume that a character makes sufficient retries to obtain the maximum possible check result (as if a 20 were rolled on d20). Taking 20 takes as much time as making twenty separate skill checks (usually at least 2 minutes). Taking 20 assumes that the character fails many times before succeeding, and thus can't be used if failure carries negative consequences.

As Planar Binding requires an opposed Charisma check (not a skill check), you can't take 10 on it.

EDIT: Aura of Perfect Order (ToB 57) allows you to "take 11" on the aforementioned check.

This stance allows you to treat a potential d20 result as an 11. You must decide to use this ability immediately before rolling the d20. You can use this ability once per round. Using this ability does not take an action. You simply decide to invoke it before rolling a d20 for any reason, such as for an attack, save, or check.

[Psyren]

You can only take 10 on skill checks. Source: glossary.

You appear to have missed this line from PHB 65 / RC 31:


Ability Checks and Caster Level Checks: The normal take 10 and take 20 rules apply for ability checks. Neither rule applies to caster level checks (such as when casting dispel magic or attempting to overcome spell resistance).

[Doctor Awkward]

An opposed check almost always counts as threatening imo, and one with potential consequences like these even moreso. I would not allow taking 10.

Perhaps not always. In Dungeon Master's Guide II, on page 235 there the Ritual of Theft which grants a character "a +2 bonus on any Open Lock or Search check on which you take 20, and on any Bluff, Disable Device, or Sleight of Hand check on which you take 10."

Note that Bluff is on that list, which per the skill description is always an opposed check (the target's Sense Motive check). The ritual provides no special ability to Take 10, suggesting that you are normally free to do so.

I agree with the above post that you are free to Take 10 on an ability check provided you meet the normal criteria, but that you run the risk that your opponent might not.

[Calthropstu]

It's an opposed check. Your goal isn't to hit DC 20. Your goal is to hit whatever the other guy rolled.

Right. And if your opposition has cha mod of +6, and you have +16... "I take ten and win." I, personally, do not like the thought of that.

[Psyren]

Perhaps not always. In Dungeon Master's Guide II, on page 235 there the Ritual of Theft which grants a character "a +2 bonus on any Open Lock or Search check on which you take 20, and on any Bluff, Disable Device, or Sleight of Hand check on which you take 10."

That ability is presumably aimed at Rogues, who can eventually take 10 on all these skills even while under pressure, so I stand by my statement.

[Mr Adventurer]

That ability is presumably aimed at Rogues, who can eventually take 10 on all these skills even while under pressure, so I stand by my statement.

True... if they take the Skill Mastery Rogue Special Ability, and if they choose those skills to master.

[PraxisVetli]

Since Initiative is considered a Dexterity check, then is there a way to be able to take 10/20 on checks while rushed, so that one might take 20 on Initiative? Because that'd be pretty cool.

[Crake]

If penalty for failure is the bar for "cannot take 10", then do you also deny people taking 10 on balance, climb, swim and jump checks? Seems like a bad precedent IMO. "Penalty for failure" and "being threatened" should not be considered synonymous.

[Evil DM Mark3]

Penalty for failure is the bar for taking 20, you can take 10 when there if a penalty for failure, in fact that is the main reason to do so.

As strange as it seems to me at first, yes it looks like you can take 10 on Planar Binding. I suppose the argument here is that a giant bolder is just as lethal as a demon and no one argues you can't take 10 to lift one.

[Ashtagon]

If penalty for failure is the bar for "cannot take 10", then do you also deny people taking 10 on balance, climb, swim and jump checks? Seems like a bad precedent IMO. "Penalty for failure" and "being threatened" should not be considered synonymous.

For being threatened, I'd take it as "if you do nothing but stand still with your eyes closed instead of attempting whatever it is you're attempting, if there a high chance you'll suffer an attack or injury (either physical, mental, or social)?"

(Yes, most people can hold on to a ledge without moving, or tread water, so taking 10 on Climb/Swim checks is viable.)

Losing face in front of your peers counts as a threat for that purpose, so taking 10 on Diplomacy at the king's court during tense negotiations with a foreign emissary isn't going to happen. But without that audience, taking 10 on negotiations seems quite viable.

[Jack_Simth]

For being threatened, I'd take it as "if you do nothing but stand still with your eyes closed instead of attempting whatever it is you're attempting, if there a high chance you'll suffer an attack or injury (either physical, mental, or social)?"If I stand still with my eyes closed and do nothing while the fire elemental is stuck inside the Calling Diagram... nothing happens.

[Psyren]

True... if they take the Skill Mastery Rogue Special Ability, and if they choose those skills to master.

If you're not in the party to either deal with traps and locks or deal with social situations (or both), I'd be hard-pressed to know why you're playing rogue in the first place.


Since Initiative is considered a Dexterity check, then is there a way to be able to take 10/20 on checks while rushed, so that one might take 20 on Initiative? Because that'd be pretty cool.

Initiative is an interesting case; even if i had some kind of ability that let me take 10, I still wouldn't. Taking 10 is for situations where a huge upside doesn't matter, but with Initiative it almost always does - after all, if you're in a situation where your modifier is so high that a high roll wouldn't matter, then a low result probably isn't going to hurt you much either, and you might as well roll.



As strange as it seems to me at first, yes it looks like you can take 10 on Planar Binding. I suppose the argument here is that a giant bolder is just as lethal as a demon and no one argues you can't take 10 to lift one.

You can take 10 (and even 20) while preparing the binding circle. The Charisma check against the thing you have bound is another matter entirely; I'd rule no there.

[Mr Adventurer]

If you're not in the party to either deal with traps and locks or deal with social situations (or both), I'd be hard-pressed to know why you're playing rogue in the first place.

Come now, don't be glib. There could be lots of reasons.

But the main thing I would say about your post is that "dealing with traps and locks or social situations" and "being able to Take 10 on those skills" are not identical even when both could apply. It's wholly possible to do those things without making those build choices. I've seen it.

[Psyren]

Come now, don't be glib. There could be lots of reasons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SCO8QDFJuY


But the main thing I would say about your post is that "dealing with traps and locks or social situations" and "being able to Take 10 on those skills" are not identical even when both could apply. It's wholly possible to do those things without making those build choices. I've seen it.

My point is that I said opposed checks are almost always under duress/threat. A Bluff to feint in a fight is definitely going to qualify, while a Bluff to lie to someone is going to depend on the situation, though I would still generally lean towards no on taking 10 there. An obscure item crafting technique that references a gaggle of skills without context doesn't change my mind on that.

[Ashtagon]

If I stand still with my eyes closed and do nothing while the fire elemental is stuck inside the Calling Diagram... nothing happens.

Indeed, which is why I would allow the caster to take 10. However, as I also noted upthread, Smoky McBurnFace can still choose to roll or take 10, as he wishes. The PC taking 10 does not guarantee a specific result in this scenario.

[Jack_Simth]

Indeed, which is why I would allow the caster to take 10. However, as I also noted upthread, Smoky McBurnFace can still choose to roll or take 10, as he wishes. The PC taking 10 does not guarantee a specific result in this scenario.
It guarantees that the caster does not roll a 1, which means the beast doesn't get out that day by that means.

If the caster has a Charisma check modifier that's at least +10 higher than the bound critter's, then it does guarantee a win (consider a Wizard-15 using Moment of Prescience (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/momentOfPrescience.htm) - it's explicitly useful on opposed ability checks, and with a Charisma of just 8, that +15 bonus from the spell means if the wizard takes ten and uses Moment of Prescience, any critter with a Charisma modifier of +4 or less will lose, even if the critter rolls a 20 - which means a Huge fire elemental will agree to the contract).

[Calthropstu]

It guarantees that the caster does not roll a 1, which means the beast doesn't get out that day by that means.

If the caster has a Charisma check modifier that's at least +10 higher than the bound critter's, then it does guarantee a win (consider a Wizard-15 using Moment of Prescience (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/momentOfPrescience.htm) - it's explicitly useful on opposed ability checks, and with a Charisma of just 8, that +15 bonus from the spell means if the wizard takes ten and uses Moment of Prescience, any critter with a Charisma modifier of +4 or less will lose, even if the critter rolls a 20 - which means a Huge fire elemental will agree to the contract).

Agreed. Those arguing that you should allow a "take 10" are basically arguing "I should be allowed to use one of the most absurdly broken spells in the game with absolutely zero risk, and then I should be allowed to game the system to guarantee success."
I would shut this down hard.

[Psyren]

Given that skill and ability checks do not usually fail on a 1, I would consider any situation where they explicitly do to be special and thus considered "threatened." No taking 10.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Is not the opposed charisma check simulating hostile negotiations with an entity that is at the moment, quite irate with you? I don't see anything about that not being stressful.

[Doctor Awkward]

Agreed. Those arguing that you should allow a "take 10" are basically arguing "I should be allowed to use one of the most absurdly broken spells in the game with absolutely zero risk, and then I should be allowed to game the system to guarantee success."
I would shut this down hard.


Given that skill and ability checks do not usually fail on a 1, I would consider any situation where they explicitly do to be special and thus considered "threatened." No taking 10.


In any other thread this would probably be the part where someone would point out that the OP isn't asking for how you feel the rules should work. They were asking for what the rules actually say.

[Psyren]

In any other thread this would probably be the part where someone would point out that the OP isn't asking for how you feel the rules should work. They were asking for what the rules actually say.

What is the rules definition for "threatened or distracted?" All we have are examples, not a comprehensive list of conditions. The DM is expected to use some judgement here, just like they are with "unreasonable commands" elsewhere in the spell.

[Doctor Awkward]

What is the rules definition for "threatened or distracted?"

Threatened (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/attacksOfOpportunity.htm#threatenedSquares)

Distracted. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/concentration.htm)

For general rules purposes, a "distraction" is any outside effect that might inhibit your ability to focus on the task at hand, whether said task is a skill check, ability check, casting a spell, or being in melee combat.

[Psyren]

Threatened (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/attacksOfOpportunity.htm#threatenedSquares)

Distracted. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/concentration.htm)

Clearly wrong/incomplete since they describe "combat" as a qualifting circumstance. You can be in combat without being flanked. Try again.

[Jack_Simth]

Agreed. Those arguing that you should allow a "take 10" are basically arguing "I should be allowed to use one of the most absurdly broken spells in the game with absolutely zero risk, and then I should be allowed to game the system to guarantee success."
I would shut this down hard.

Given that Surge of Fortune exists, and that there are ways to get spells across class lists (whether that's getting the Planar Binding line on a Divine caster, or Surge of Fortune on an Arcane caster) it's still possible to arrange essentially 0 risk, even without the ability to take ten. It's just a matter of "how much in the way of build resources and daily resources will it require?"

[Crake]

Given that Surge of Fortune exists, and that there are ways to get spells across class lists (whether that's getting the Planar Binding line on a Divine caster, or Surge of Fortune on an Arcane caster) it's still possible to arrange essentially 0 risk, even without the ability to take ten. It's just a matter of "how much in the way of build resources and daily resources will it require?"

Yeah, I was gonna bring up surge of fortune as a counterpoint to that argument too. Even if you just get a scroll of it and UMD it, it's still generally an easy win for the wizard, especially if combined with moment of prescience. If you're gonna deny a player some kind of reliability by denying them the ability to take 10, they'll just find it elsewhere.

[Psychoalpha]

Given that skill and ability checks do not usually fail on a 1, I would consider any situation where they explicitly do to be special and thus considered "threatened." No taking 10.

This. I was about to post that I agreed that Take 10 should be allowed, but this is on point. Ability checks do not automatically fail on a 1, but this does, and with metaphysical consequences to boot: A roll of a 1 on the Charisma check does not just 'fail' the negotiation, it breaks a mystical binding created by a spell. That is far enough outside the bounds of the usual rules for making an ability check that allowing it to be outside the technical rule for taking 10 makes sense.

[Calthropstu]

Given that Surge of Fortune exists, and that there are ways to get spells across class lists (whether that's getting the Planar Binding line on a Divine caster, or Surge of Fortune on an Arcane caster) it's still possible to arrange essentially 0 risk, even without the ability to take ten. It's just a matter of "how much in the way of build resources and daily resources will it require?"

Given nat 1 auto fails and immediately releases the subject, the risk willnever equal zero.

[Mr Adventurer]

Given nat 1 auto fails and immediately releases the subject, the risk willnever equal zero.

Depends.

If I summon a Medium Elemental, then it's not a meaningful threat. Especially if I'm a Wizard with Contingent Teleport.

[Calthropstu]

Depends.

If I summon a Medium Elemental, then it's not a meaningful threat. Especially if I'm a Wizard with Contingent Teleport.

Yes, but the binding itself has failed. And, while it may not threaten your person, it could theoretically escape your lab and do substantial damage elsewhere.

[Pex]

Right. And if your opposition has cha mod of +6, and you have +16... "I take ten and win." I, personally, do not like the thought of that.

Why? The character is just that good. That's the feature of Take 10 where your character can be such an expert at something even putting in average effort achieves success. In terms of Planar Binding it would autowork on low HD planar beings because you're that awesome a spellcaster.

Edit: That's just to mean I don't find autosuccess on a Take 10 to be a bad thing if Take 10 is allowed. At the moment I'm not advocating for or against as to whether Take 10 is permissible in this case. I'm undecided for now.

[Mr Adventurer]

Yes, but the binding itself has failed. And, while it may not threaten your person, it could theoretically escape your lab and do substantial damage elsewhere.

This feels like a stretch, since it assumes the character has a lab or cares about damage done elsewhere.

[Calthropstu]

This feels like a stretch, since it assumes the character has a lab or cares about damage done elsewhere.

A good dm will make you care.

[Akkristor]

I'd say no to taking 10.

Yes, there are plenty of ways to ensure that even on a Nat 1, you can succeed (Surge of Fortune, Luck feats). However, these all take resources. Being able to Take 10 is free.

[Mr Adventurer]

A good dm will make you care.

Nah, I don't want to care.

[Calthropstu]

Nah, I don't want to care.

The fire elemental escapes into the town setting fire to several houses and kills 2 people. Investigators have tracked it down as having come from your tower. You are accosted by 4 constables with an arrest warrant. What do you do?

[Mr Adventurer]

The fire elemental escapes into the town setting fire to several houses and kills 2 people. Investigators have tracked it down as having come from your tower. You are accosted by 4 constables with an arrest warrant. What do you do?
I told you I didn't want to care. By creating this storyline anyway, this is an example of bad DMing.

[Calthropstu]

I told you I didn't want to care. By creating this storyline anyway, this is an example of bad DMing.

Actions have consequences. You unleashed an uncontrolled extraplanar entity on the genera populace. Society tends to frown on that.

[Psyren]

I told you I didn't want to care. By creating this storyline anyway, this is an example of bad DMing.

"I want to do whatever I want with no consequences" is bad player behavior. I'd sooner ban the spell entirely at that point.

[Mr Adventurer]

Actions have consequences. You unleashed an uncontrolled extraplanar entity on the genera populace. Society tends to frown on that.


"I want to do whatever I want with no consequences" is bad player behavior. I'd sooner ban the spell entirely at that point.

Both false dichotomies.

[Jack_Simth]

Given nat 1 auto fails and immediately releases the subject, the risk willnever equal zero.

If I am using Surge of Fortune, I don't actually roll the die, so there can be no 1. If I take 10, likewise.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Both false dichotomies.

You will need to actually explain that, not just fire some sort of fallacy cannon and run away.

Please also remember the Fallacy Fallacy: an argument containing what you percieve to be a fallacy does not automatically invalidate it or validate your counterargument. You must build a solid position yourself.

[Akkristor]

Neither of those were false dichotomies.

A false dichotomy requires the presentation of a set of outcomes as the only possible outcomes, when that is not true.
"You're either part of the solution or part of the problem." is a false dichotomy.

"Actions have consequences" is not a dichotomy at all. The following "You unleashed an uncontrolled extraplanar entity on the genera populace. Society tends to frown on that." is a possible outcome and a generalization statement, but is not presented as the only possible outcome of the situation.

""I want to do whatever I want with no consequences" is bad player behavior. I'd sooner ban the spell entirely at that point." is also not a dichotomy. It is a presentation of an individual's opinion.


Either way, getting off-topic here.

The main crux of the situation is, does the Natural 1 outcome of the Charisma check mean that the Check is 'threatened' or 'Distracted', preventing a Take 10.


Yes, resources can be spent to remove the threat of a Natural 1. But special circumstances like that cannot be used to evaluate the base situation.

[LordBlades]

Actions have consequences. You unleashed an uncontrolled extraplanar entity on the genera populace. Society tends to frown on that.

In all honesty, a society that can't put down a medium elemental before it kills several guys probably would have a hard time threatening a wizard at the level it can cast planar binding.

[pabelfly]

In all honesty, a society that can't put down a medium elemental before it kills several guys probably would have a hard time threatening a wizard at the level it can cast planar binding.

The local magical police force might take a minute or two to respond, in the same way firefighters might require time to respond to a fire while waiting to be called out. That doesn't mean they can't respond rather forcefully though.

[LordBlades]

The local magical police force might take a minute or two to respond, in the same way firefighters might require time to respond to a fire while waiting to be called out. That doesn't mean they can't respond rather forcefully though.

Firefighters don't have divination magic.

Planar Biding is a 6th level spell. Divination is a 4th level spell, Contact Other Plane is a 5th level spell, to just give 2 basic examples. If your job is 'magical policeman' you should constantly be divining stuff left and right to prevent threats (it's the magical equivalent of police patrols on the street). If you are surprised by a low CR magical creature that just walked to an area under your protection and killed some guys then you're likely not a threat to a wizard able to cast 6th level spells because you either lack enough magic or you don't know how to properly use it.

[Akkristor]

Firefighters don't have divination magic.

Planar Biding is a 6th level spell. Divination is a 4th level spell, Contact Other Plane is a 5th level spell, to just give 2 basic examples. If your job is 'magical policeman' you should constantly be divining stuff left and right to prevent threats (it's the magical equivalent of police patrols on the street). If you are surprised by a low CR magical creature that just walked to an area under your protection and killed some guys then you're likely not a threat to a wizard able to cast 6th level spells because you either lack enough magic or you don't know how to properly use it.


Department of Magical Pre-crime.

[Psyren]

Firefighters don't have divination magic.

Planar Biding is a 6th level spell. Divination is a 4th level spell, Contact Other Plane is a 5th level spell, to just give 2 basic examples. If your job is 'magical policeman' you should constantly be divining stuff left and right to prevent threats (it's the magical equivalent of police patrols on the street). If you are surprised by a low CR magical creature that just walked to an area under your protection and killed some guys then you're likely not a threat to a wizard able to cast 6th level spells because you either lack enough magic or you don't know how to properly use it.

1) Divination is very far from perfect. This meme of "divination magic exists, therefore society can anticipate/prevent anything bad from happening" is nonsense.

2) Even if Divination were this perfect, you're forgetting the obvious implication - that it would mean they'll detect you're about to screw up your binding and get innocent people hurt instead. All you've changed is when they kick your door in, e.g. when you have the powdered silver and chalk in hand to begin drawing your circle. This kind of divination doesn't save your conjurer from consequences, all it saves you from is due process.

[LordBlades]

1) Divination is very far from perfect. This meme of "divination magic exists, therefore society can anticipate/prevent anything bad from happening" is nonsense.

2) Even if Divination were this perfect, you're forgetting the obvious implication - that it would mean they'll detect you're about to screw up your binding and get innocent people hurt instead. All you've changed is when they kick your door in, e.g. when you have the powdered silver and chalk in hand to begin drawing your circle. This kind of divination doesn't save your conjurer from consequences, all it saves you from is due process.

1) I never said it was. All I said is that, if you can't divine and prepare against literally the most obvious attack possible (a monster simply walking in in broad daylight) in your area of expertise, then you are likely not a threat to a high level wizard. For example, consider a 7th level cleric or a 9th level wizard running a few castings of Divination respectively Contact Other Plane weekly, and asking whether the town/area they are protecting would be under attack in the coming week. If the answer is yes, go from there with more detailed research. If you can't even manage that much (which means you lack access to both divine spells of 4th level and arcane spells of 5th level), what chances do you have going against a wizard who can cast at least 6th level spells? Generally none whatsoever. I'm not trying to say every place in the world would have that kind of protection. What I'm trying to say is that, IMO, it's hard to have a scenario where a community somehow doesn't have the resources for even basic magical prevention and protection, but at the same time has the resources to track and take down a high level wizard after the fact.

2) The more information you want to gather about a specific event in the future, the more resources you have to expend. It's a long way from 'tomorrow something bad will happen, better be on alert' to, 'tomorrow around noon a Fire Elemental will walk into town' and from there to 'tomorrow, at precisely 10.47 AM, Will the Wizard will start binding a Fire Elemental, the binding will go wrong, and this will result in the Fire Elemental walking into town and killing 2 guys'. In a highly magical society (think Tippyverse) I expect stuff like that to happen fairly regularly, and as such, I expect anyone who tries to do anything even remotely questionable to take at least basic anti-Divination measures.

[Doctor Awkward]

Clearly wrong/incomplete since they describe "combat" as a qualifting circumstance. You can be in combat without being flanked. Try again.

Nothing in this entire post makes sense.

Try again.

[Doctor Awkward]

The main crux of the situation is, does the Natural 1 outcome of the Charisma check mean that the Check is 'threatened' or 'Distracted', preventing a Take 10.

That "penalty for failure" clause is for the Take 20 rule, which assumes your character repeatedly attempts a task over and over until they perfectly succeed, and the character in question incurs any penalties for failure until the check is completed (which takes several minutes).

This clause is not present when Taking 10, which is explicitly only a single attempt. It can be used on any check which does not expressly prohibit it, such as in the case of Use Magic Device. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/useMagicDevice.htm)

[Crake]

Given nat 1 auto fails and immediately releases the subject, the risk willnever equal zero.

I take it you don't know what the spell surge of fortune does, so allow me to enlighten you: "At any point before the spell expires, you can channel some of its remaining power into a single instant of perfect fortune as an immediate action. The result of the next attack roll, saving throw, skill check, ability check, or spell penetration check you attempt is treated as a natural 20, as long as it occurs within 1 round of the time you invoked this power."

So... no chance of a natural 1 there. Zero risk.

[Akkristor]

I take it you don't know what the spell surge of fortune does, so allow me to enlighten you: "At any point before the spell expires, you can channel some of its remaining power into a single instant of perfect fortune as an immediate action. The result of the next attack roll, saving throw, skill check, ability check, or spell penetration check you attempt is treated as a natural 20, as long as it occurs within 1 round of the time you invoked this power."

So... no chance of a natural 1 there. Zero risk.


Yes, but if you use Surge of Fortune, there is no roll. You basically "Take Natural-20". You can't Take 10 on the roll.

IF you roll, there is a risk of Natural 1.

Surge of Fortune makes the entire question moot, and is outside the topic of discussion.

[Psyren]

Nothing in this entire post makes sense.

Try again.

You linked two irrelevant entries that happen to be similarly named to the clause in the take 10 rule and declared victory. You'd have known they were irrelevant if you actually read the rule. So, back to you.


1) I never said it was. All I said is that, if you can't divine and prepare against literally the most obvious attack possible (a monster simply walking in in broad daylight) in your area of expertise, then you are likely not a threat to a high level wizard.

I'm not saying they couldn't prevent any of it with divination. But it's still not perfect. And so the law is punitive as well as preventative.

[Jack_Simth]

Yes, but if you use Surge of Fortune, there is no roll. You basically "Take Natural-20". You can't Take 10 on the roll.

IF you roll, there is a risk of Natural 1.

Surge of Fortune makes the entire question moot, and is outside the topic of discussion.

Not really. One of the complaints of taking ten was that it makes auto-success on something that shouldn't have the option possible (see one such by Calthropstu (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=24140499&postcount=26)).

Surge of Fortune demonstrates that it's possible to "game the system" to that point regardless of whether or not you're specifically permitted to take ten. This makes Surge of Fortune a form of counterpoint - the flaw already exists anyway, all taking ten does is change the resource requirements.

I'd say no to taking 10.

Yes, there are plenty of ways to ensure that even on a Nat 1, you can succeed (Surge of Fortune, Luck feats). However, these all take resources. Being able to Take 10 is free.
... but even with taking ten, it's still not free. The critter can still roll, which means in order for taking ten to guarantee success, you need to invest enough resources into the check (which you're still making when taking ten, even if you're not rolling it) such that you've got a modifier on your check of at least ten points above the target's. Against an Elemental (Cha-11, +0 mod), that's easy. Against a Pit Fiend (Cha-26, +8 mod), that's much harder. It's expected to be a much lower build resource cost to get a +10 modifier over the target's (what you need if take-10 is permitted) than it is to get a suitable combination together such that you can manipulate rolls (what you need if take-10 is not permitted). There's still costs involved if you want to make taking ten meaningfully useful. It's noticeably less expensive to guarantee success if you can take ten, but there's still costs involved.

[D+1]

Per the title. The Charisma check is opposed. The spell says that if you roll a 1, the creature breaks free and attacks you. Are either of these enough to prevent me Taking 10?Yes, you may take 10. The charisma check takes place after the trap has been prepared and the binding already cast and the target already has had opportunity to resist the spell. The creature is now stuck there in your trap and you get to try as many times as you like, and for as long as you like, to convince it to do what you want it to do. You can bribe, intimidate, or whatever you care to do to improve your ability to do that convincing - including Taking 10 so as to AVOID the possibility of rolling a 1 and having your captive get free. You have ALL THE TIME IN THE WORLD to prepare any and all attempts at convincing the captive. You are not in combat. You are not threatened - as the game defines being threatened.

You COULD have a DM who decides that because of what you're asking the captive to do it will refuse no matter HOW convincingly you argue or intimidate, but as long as it's open to BEING convinced (even if it's going to be super-difficult) and you AREN'T actually under time pressure or in combat, then _I_ certainly don't see that there should be any reason to object to Taking 10 on the check.

[Calthropstu]

I take it you don't know what the spell surge of fortune does, so allow me to enlighten you: "At any point before the spell expires, you can channel some of its remaining power into a single instant of perfect fortune as an immediate action. The result of the next attack roll, saving throw, skill check, ability check, or spell penetration check you attempt is treated as a natural 20, as long as it occurs within 1 round of the time you invoked this power."

So... no chance of a natural 1 there. Zero risk.

So yeah... I am going let you know something... that spell doesn't work.
It might work in combat or quick tasks, but negotiating a contract or performing research or magic crafting... anything that takes longer than 1 round per level, that spell auto fails. So yeah, kinda talked yourself out of relevance on that one.

[Doctor Awkward]

You linked two irrelevant entries that happen to be similarly named to the clause in the take 10 rule and declared victory. You'd have known they were irrelevant if you actually read the rule. So, back to you.

...Irrelevant? Why, because it's found somewhere else in the same rule book?
Do you still not understand how the rules work?


Let’s face it: No set of rules can cover every possible
circumstance in a game meant to mimic life in a fantasy
world. The rules clear up as much as possible, assuming the
DM can make a judgment in a situation that the rules don’t
cover or that they don’t cover adequately. DMs are expected
to use knowledge of existing rules, common sense, realworld
knowledge, and a sense of fun when dealing with
such special cases. Knowledge of the existing rules is key,
because the rules often do cover similar cases or combine
to make such judgment calls unnecessary.

[Psyren]

...Irrelevant? Why, because it's found somewhere else in the same rule book?
Do you still not understand how the rules work?

I do, do you?

"Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10."

So by your definition, you're only in combat when something is in melee range of you or when you have to make a concentration check? Do you see why your reading makes no sense yet?

[Calthropstu]

I do, do you?

"Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10."

So by your definition, you're only in combat when something is in melee range of you or when you have to make a concentration check? Do you see why your reading makes no sense yet?

I doubt he even realizes that the two of you are in a form of combat right now. Discussions, debates, arguments, negotiations, sex, strategy meetings...

none of these benefit from taking ten. Because they ARE combats in and of themselves. Just as you can't take 10 on a diplomacy roll to influence someone, the same reasons apply here.

You don't get another chance and there are always things you can't account for. So take as long as you want, study all you want. Doesn't change a damn thing. Especially since we are talking about sentient beings. Every single one will require a different approach.

[Doctor Awkward]

I do, do you?

"Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10."

So by your definition, you're only in combat when something is in melee range of you or when you have to make a concentration check? Do you see why your reading makes no sense yet?

I don't have a definition of combat. The rules do. I just happen to agree with them.

And no, it's the book's definition you are only threatened when an armed opponent is in melee range. Which is the same definition being used in the sentence you keep quoting. Distractions are variously defined elsewhere and are pretty dependent on task you are currently doing: vigorous motion can be a distraction. getting damaged by a spell can be a distraction. Bad weather, and so on. Hell, there's even a psionic power (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/distract.htm) for it.


I doubt he even realizes that the two of you are in a form of combat right now. Discussions, debates, arguments, negotiations, sex, strategy meetings...

none of these benefit from taking ten. Because they ARE combats in and of themselves. Just as you can't take 10 on a diplomacy roll to influence someone, the same reasons apply here.

You don't get another chance and there are always things you can't account for. So take as long as you want, study all you want. Doesn't change a damn thing. Especially since we are talking about sentient beings. Every single one will require a different approach.

Sophistry.
The game doesn't care what your philosophical definition of combat is. There are rules that spell it out for you, if you care to read them.

[Elysiume]

Per the linked rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/attacksOfOpportunity.htm#threatenedSquares), only a square can be threatened. You do not threaten all enemies that you can make a melee attack against; you "threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack." You do not provoke an AoO for taking certain actions while threatened, you provoke an AoO when "moving out of a threatened square and performing an action within a threatened square." In conclusion, since the rules do not explicitly state that a creature is threatened when in a threatened square, "when your character is not being threatened" is always true and therefore never applies.

[Calthropstu]

Sophistry.
The game doesn't care what your philosophical definition of combat is. There are rules that spell it out for you, if you care to read them.

Not exactly. It has rules for many types of combat actually, but not all. They have rules for settling arguments and haggling, (a la opposed diplomacy rolls) forms of verbal combat, but not how long it takes for example. The system, outside physical combat, starts to fall apart.

A man standing with a crossbow pointed at you is a threat. Just because he doesn't have melee range doesn't mean you can take 10.

Likewise, a bomb about to blow up the dungeon makes you rush. You are threatened and know it.

In this particular case, you are threatened with pure failure by circumstances you cannot control. You need to initiate a dialogue with a very hostile creature and convince it to help you. No amount of prep time will make this thing hate you less. On the contrary, it would likely get angrier giving you penalties.

It also knows if it outwaits your circle, it will be freed eventually no matter what. So getting it to do something for you after pulling it from its home and trapping it is going to take some work.

No amount of "I say it carefully" is going to help.

[Doctor Awkward]

Per the linked rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/attacksOfOpportunity.htm#threatenedSquares), only a square can be threatened. You do not threaten all enemies that you can make a melee attack against; you "threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack." You do not provoke an AoO for taking certain actions while threatened, you provoke an AoO when "moving out of a threatened square and performing an action within a threatened square." In conclusion, since the rules do not explicitly state that a creature is threatened when in a threatened square, "when your character is not being threatened" is always true and therefore never applies.

Hm. good point.

Based on that, ranks in Tumble become far more valuable. Even at level 1, a character with max-ranks and only a +1 Dex bonus can auto-succeed by Taking 10. Every two levels after that they can add an additional opponent. By the time they hit level 17 they can auto-succeed even when they are completely surrounded.

[Psyren]

And no, it's the book's definition you are only threatened when an armed opponent is in melee range.

So if you're fighting archers or mages, you're not in combat then?

[Doctor Awkward]

Not exactly. It has rules for many types of combat actually, but not all.
:smallconfused:



Mighty swords clash, arrows hiss through the air, claws
rip and tear and rend; these are the thrilling sounds
of battle. D&D adventurers constantly find themselves
embroiled in combat situations—and they
wouldn’t have it any other way! Whether the adventurers
must fend off a bandit ambush on a deserted road or fight
their way out of a bugbear lair in the deepest part of a dungeon, the rules in this chapter provides an exciting way to solve any combat situation.

Well the book I have seems fairly convinced that there are rules for only one type of combat...


They have rules for settling arguments and haggling, (a la opposed diplomacy rolls) forms of verbal combat, but not how long it takes for example. The system, outside physical combat, starts to fall apart.

Ah here's the problem.
Those situations you described aren't combat. They are "encounters."

As is stated in the Dungeon Master's Guide on page 48, the mechanics underlying the story of an adventure are ultimately composed of a series of encounters. "Each individual encounter is like its own game—with a beginning, a middle, an end, and victory conditions to determine a winner and a loser."

Now an encounter might involve combat, and a majority of them probably do. But it can also involve nothing but skill checks, like the aforementioned diplomatic haggling. They are essentially events that are set up and scripted by the DM in which the progression and resolution are ultimately determined by the choices of the players.


A man standing with a crossbow pointed at you is a threat. Just because he doesn't have melee range doesn't mean you can take 10.

Arguable, but the creature inside a summoning circle can't shoot you with a crossbow, even if it does have one.


Likewise, a bomb about to blow up the dungeon makes you rush. You are threatened and know it.
I will concede this is an excellent argument for not attempting planar bindings inside of a dungeon that is about to blow up.


In this particular case, you are threatened with pure failure by circumstances you cannot control.

This is your opinion. And there are no direct statements in the rules that support this. You have formed a notion of how you think the rules should work, and allowing that to inform your interpretation of them. That's not RAW. That's the Rules As I Interpret Them And You Can't Prove I'm Wrong, So There.

[Doctor Awkward]

So if you're fighting archers or mages, you're not in combat then?

Not if they are trapped inside of a summoning circle, no.

[Psyren]

Not if they are trapped inside of a summoning circle, no.

The definition you linked doesn't mention a summoning circle at all. So you agree it's irrelevant then?

[Elysiume]

Jokes aside, the rules on taking 10 don't just specify being threatened. It refers to threats in general:

Distractions or threats (such as combat) make it impossible for a character to take 10.
It does not, unfortunately, elaborate on what constitutes a threat. You can take 10 on an action that has consequences for failure, but you cannot take 10 if there is a threat or distraction present when you want to initiate the action. Pure RAW, I would say that you can take 10 on the charisma check. When you take the action, you are not yet threatened by the creature within the circle, much like when you take 10 on a climb check, you are not yet threatened by gravity and the ground below.

[Mordaedil]

I'm pretty sure taking a 10 for these situations is explicitly a feat or class feature.

[Doctor Awkward]

The definition you linked doesn't mention a summoning circle at all. So you agree it's irrelevant then?

/picarddoublefacepalm


Let’s face it: No set of rules can cover every possible
circumstance in a game meant to mimic life in a fantasy
world. The rules clear up as much as possible, assuming the
DM can make a judgment in a situation that the rules don’t
cover or that they don’t cover adequately. DMs are expected
to use knowledge of existing rules, common sense, realworld
knowledge, and a sense of fun when dealing with
such special cases. Knowledge of the existing rules is key,
because the rules often do cover similar cases or combine
to make such judgment calls unnecessary.

[Psyren]

/picarddoublefacepalm

"Often" (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/often) is not "always." The context of "threaten" in the take 10 rule is that it applies to far more than being within melee range of an opponent, because you can be in combat without that.

[Crake]

So yeah... I am going let you know something... that spell doesn't work.
It might work in combat or quick tasks, but negotiating a contract or performing research or magic crafting... anything that takes longer than 1 round per level, that spell auto fails. So yeah, kinda talked yourself out of relevance on that one.

You think making a demand and forcing your will on a creature takes longer than "Agree to my terms"? You can spend however long you want laying out the terms, but ultimately the charisma check is simply the final demand. Even then, you can outline a demand easily in just a single round, it may not be the most iron-bound demand that could be easily exploitable, but surge of fortune can definitely be used unless you're trying far too hard to do some sort of elaborate deal. Planar binding doesn't have to be a negotiation, it can simply be an ultimatum stated in a single sentence.

[Calthropstu]

You think making a demand and forcing your will on a creature takes longer than "Agree to my terms"? You can spend however long you want laying out the terms, but ultimately the charisma check is simply the final demand. Even then, you can outline a demand easily in just a single round, it may not be the most iron-bound demand that could be easily exploitable, but surge of fortune can definitely be used unless you're trying far too hard to do some sort of elaborate deal. Planar binding doesn't have to be a negotiation, it can simply be an ultimatum stated in a single sentence.

Yeah... you realize that is your character committing suicide right? "Serve me forever or die..." "Sure."

1 week later:

"Bring me food."
"Ok."
"The meat tastes funny. What is it?"
"Your wife."

So, either you negotiate or you spend time correcting your idiotic orders to an entity you know wants to kill you. In short, sure you can shorten your negotiating time to use the spell. Either the demand imposes ridiculous penalties making the attempt auto fail or the demand gets perverted because you left a bazillion loopholes by not negotiating and explaining exactly what the demand entails.

More likely the former with me.

[Crake]

Yeah... you realize that is your character committing suicide right? "Serve me forever or die..." "Sure."

1 week later:

"Bring me food."
"Ok."
"The meat tastes funny. What is it?"
"Your wife."

So, either you negotiate or you spend time correcting your idiotic orders to an entity you know wants to kill you. In short, sure you can shorten your negotiating time to use the spell. Either the demand imposes ridiculous penalties making the attempt auto fail or the demand gets perverted because you left a bazillion loopholes by not negotiating and explaining exactly what the demand entails.

More likely the former with me.

Well, "serve me forever" is already just incorrect, since open ended tasks only last a day/level.

Secondly, as I noted, you don't have to negotiate. You can spend 4 hours reading out the terms of your contract, no negotiation needed, and then right at the end, you make your demand "Agree to the terms I laid out". The charisma check is only needed for that last part of the demand, not while you're laying out the terms of your contract.

[Psyren]

Secondly, as I noted, you don't have to negotiate. You can spend 4 hours reading out the terms of your contract, no negotiation needed, and then right at the end, you make your demand "Agree to the terms I laid out". The charisma check is only needed for that last part of the demand, not while you're laying out the terms of your contract.

I disagree with this reading - the point of the Charisma check is to convince the creature. It's the terms that need to be convincing, not merely the question at the end of them.

And even if you go with this reading, the spell still wouldn't matter, because I would rule that "agree to this thing you'd never in a million years agree to if I weren't casting another spell to make me super-convincing for a brief instant" is an unreasonable command.

[Calthropstu]

Well, "serve me forever" is already just incorrect, since open ended tasks only last a day/level.

Secondly, as I noted, you don't have to negotiate. You can spend 4 hours reading out the terms of your contract, no negotiation needed, and then right at the end, you make your demand "Agree to the terms I laid out". The charisma check is only needed for that last part of the demand, not while you're laying out the terms of your contract.

Negative. The check is the culmination of all of that. It comprises the presentation of the contract, the treatment of the outsider, the nature of the request itself... It's not the "instant I ask it to agree."
A check is for how successful you are at presenting your case. That includes the aforementioned 4 hours. By the time you state "Now agree to this contract" Its mind is already made up. The spell is irrelevant.

[Ashtagon]

Negative. The check is the culmination of all of that. It comprises the presentation of the contract, the treatment of the outsider, the nature of the request itself... It's not the "instant I ask it to agree."
A check is for how successful you are at presenting your case. That includes the aforementioned 4 hours. By the time you state "Now agree to this contract" Its mind is already made up. The spell is irrelevant.

I'm with Calthropstu on this one. Spells that allow you to take 10 (or take 20) for tasks that takes a single round only are not applicable to this check, because the discussions take place over a longer time. For the same reason, they typically don't work for Craft checks. (It'd be a fairly extraordinary set of circumstances that'd prevent a day's Craft work not having an option to take 10 even without magical assistance, but you still couldn't use a single-instant-take-20 spell to help with a day's worth of Craft work.)

[Crake]

I disagree with this reading - the point of the Charisma check is to convince the creature. It's the terms that need to be convincing, not merely the question at the end of them.

And even if you go with this reading, the spell still wouldn't matter, because I would rule that "agree to this thing you'd never in a million years agree to if I weren't casting another spell to make me super-convincing for a brief instant" is an unreasonable command.

The planar binding check isn't a convince check, it's a command check. You are literally forcing your will upon the creature and compelling it to perform the service, as noted by the fact that the creature is literally incapable of going against the command (though it is capable of subverting it). Negotiations are optional, in that offering the creature something in return, or demanding it a task that it may well have done otherwise (like asking a demon to murder an entire town), make it more amenable to your demands, but ultimately "You can attempt to compel the creature to perform a service" describes a demand, not a negotiation. Why else do you think it's a charisma check and not a diplomacy check? You know what else has an opposed charisma check to force someone to do something? Charm. Also charisma checks are involved in competing enchantment orders. The charisma check isn't a "how nicely did I ask", it's a "how much force behind my demand was there vs how much of a stone wall is this creature". It's literally a contest of personalities, where, if the bound creature loses, it's compelled to perform your demands. That all happens in one moment, not over the course of hours.

[Ashtagon]

The planar binding check isn't a convince check, it's a command check. You are literally forcing your will upon the creature and compelling it to perform the service, as noted by the fact that the creature is literally incapable of going against the command (though it is capable of subverting it). Negotiations are optional, in that offering the creature something in return, or demanding it a task that it may well have done otherwise (like asking a demon to murder an entire town), make it more amenable to your demands, but ultimately "You can attempt to compel the creature to perform a service" describes a demand, not a negotiation. Why else do you think it's a charisma check and not a diplomacy check? You know what else has an opposed charisma check to force someone to do something? Charm. Also charisma checks are involved in competing enchantment orders. The charisma check isn't a "how nicely did I ask", it's a "how much force behind my demand was there vs how much of a stone wall is this creature". It's literally a contest of personalities, where, if the bound creature loses, it's compelled to perform your demands. That all happens in one moment, not over the course of hours.

Reading the PHB version of the spell, I see...


You may ask the creature... ...in order to bargain for its services... ...payment must be made before the creature agrees to perform any services... ...The bargaining takes at least one round.

That reads more like the language of negotiation than the language of command to me.

[Crake]

Reading the PHB version of the spell, I see...


You may ask the creature... ...in order to bargain for its services... ...payment must be made before the creature agrees to perform any services... ...The bargaining takes at least one round.

That reads more like the language of negotiation than the language of command to me.

I believe, good sir, you are reading the wrong spell, that language is from planar ally.

[Psyren]

The planar binding check isn't a convince check, it's a command check. You are literally forcing your will upon the creature and compelling it to perform the service, as noted by the fact that the creature is literally incapable of going against the command (though it is capable of subverting it). Negotiations are optional, in that offering the creature something in return, or demanding it a task that it may well have done otherwise (like asking a demon to murder an entire town), make it more amenable to your demands, but ultimately "You can attempt to compel the creature to perform a service" describes a demand, not a negotiation.

It's both - if the terms are "unreasonable" the creature can still refuse no matter what you roll, so your will is far from paramount.


Why else do you think it's a charisma check and not a diplomacy check? You know what else has an opposed charisma check to force someone to do something? Charm. Also charisma checks are involved in competing enchantment orders. The charisma check isn't a "how nicely did I ask", it's a "how much force behind my demand was there vs how much of a stone wall is this creature". It's literally a contest of personalities, where, if the bound creature loses, it's compelled to perform your demands. That all happens in one moment, not over the course of hours.

The bolded bit does not follow from anything else you're saying. Your check is modified by "bribes, offers, and the like" - articulating all of that takes longer than an instant. Worse still, it's an opposed check, so you're not only arguing that presenting your side only takes an instant, you're arguing that the creature is doing the same. You don't control NPCs, the GM does, and if they say the creature's check represents longer than a single round of time, you're hosed from using this tactic entirely.

[Crake]

It's both - if the terms are "unreasonable" the creature can still refuse no matter what you roll, so your will is far from paramount.

The same applies to spells like dominate, just like offering bribes and the like make a creature more amenable to be commanded, unreasonable commands have a backward effect to the point where it becomes impossible.


The bolded bit does not follow from anything else you're saying. Your check is modified by "bribes, offers, and the like" - articulating all of that takes longer than an instant. Worse still, it's an opposed check, so you're not only arguing that presenting your side only takes an instant, you're arguing that the creature is doing the same. You don't control NPCs, the GM does, and if they say the creature's check represents longer than a single round of time, you're hosed from using this tactic entirely.

It's entirely consistent, because as I said, articulating your side is not a part of the command, the ultimate command is the demand to agree to the terms you articulated.

[Psyren]

The same applies to spells like dominate, just like offering bribes and the like make a creature more amenable to be commanded, unreasonable commands have a backward effect to the point where it becomes impossible.

Dominate uses a will save, not an opposed check. Saving throws are explicitly not an action, i.e. take no time - ability checks, like skill checks, depend on the situation. They are not the same.


It's entirely consistent, because as I said, articulating your side is not a part of the command, the ultimate command is the demand to agree to the terms you articulated.

That would be the reading I fundamentally disagree with, yes.

And again - even if you try to argue that stating your side takes no time, you cannot control the monster doing the same. Opposed checks are not controlled by one side. There are plenty of other spells you can use to boost your check result.

[Mr Adventurer]

And again - even if you try to argue that stating your side takes no time, you cannot control the monster doing the same. Opposed checks are not controlled by one side. There are plenty of other spells you can use to boost your check result.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with either position, but I don't think this is right. If someone is trying to do something to you (grapple you, or force your service under magical compelment) then I don't think you can just shrug and hold off the effect until you're ready to make your check.

[Psyren]

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with either position, but I don't think this is right. If someone is trying to do something to you (grapple you, or force your service under magical compelment) then I don't think you can just shrug and hold off the effect until you're ready to make your check.

You're not "holding your action." Grapple has a well-defined action cost on both sides (i.e. standard.) The opposed charisma check during a binding doesn't, but I strongly believe it's certainly more than 6 seconds for each party.

[Mr Adventurer]

You're not "holding your action." Grapple has a well-defined action cost on both sides (i.e. standard.) The opposed charisma check during a binding doesn't, but I strongly believe it's certainly more than 6 seconds for each party.

Well, I didn't say anything about actions as such.

And, like I said, I don't disagree with you on your position. But you were supporting your position, that it takes longer, by saying one party of the opposed check could... take longer. That seems a bit circular.

But it doesn't invalidate the rest of your arguments.

[Calthropstu]

Well, I didn't say anything about actions as such.

And, like I said, I don't disagree with you on your position. But you were supporting your position, that it takes longer, by saying one party of the opposed check could... take longer. That seems a bit circular.

But it doesn't invalidate the rest of your arguments.

Actually, Psyren is correct here. What if a bound devil decides to seek clarification on your point and begins asking a series of questions to clarify specific details? He could also seek amendments to make the deal more palatable, or refuse specific conditions.

Like multiple people have said, this is not a 1 party affair.

[Crake]

Actually, Psyren is correct here. What if a bound devil decides to seek clarification on your point and begins asking a series of questions to clarify specific details? He could also seek amendments to make the deal more palatable, or refuse specific conditions.

Like multiple people have said, this is not a 1 party affair.

The devil can ask that all he wants, but he's not in control of the matter. You don't have to negotiate or make the terms more agreeable, but doing so gives you a bonus on the charisma check. You can literally just say "No to all of the above, agree to the terms now" and the cha check happens whether he likes the deal or not. Negotiations are optional, and are not part of the charisma check itself, but rather apply a modifier to the charisma check when it does happen.

Planar binding is not about making deals, it's about making demands. If you want deals, planar ally is the spell you're looking for.

[Psyren]

Well, I didn't say anything about actions as such.

You didn't, but you mentioned timing, which actions measure. The Charisma check is untimed, thus it's up to the GM to ultimately determine. And while a PC can certainly argue for themselves (successfully or not), they have zero standing to do so for an NPC.


The devil can ask that all he wants, but he's not in control of the matter. You don't have to negotiate or make the terms more agreeable, but doing so gives you a bonus on the charisma check. You can literally just say "No to all of the above, agree to the terms now"

Unreasonable, instafail.

[Doctor Awkward]

Unreasonable, instafail.

You are allowing your personal definition "unreasonable" to dictate the entire limits of the spell.

Let me explain as plainly as possible what is happening here when you cast this spell: you are luring an extra dimensional creature into a trap where it is held forever.

Yes. Forever.
It is imprisoned in the circle permanently.

Do you see the duration line of this spell? Instantaneous.
Quote, "The called creature is held in the trap until it agrees to perform one service in return for its freedom."

Yes, there are a couple of different options for escape. If you seal the circle against both dimensional travel and the spell resistance of the creature, then once per day it can attempt an opposed Charisma check against you to break free. It is very easy to reach a point against certain creatures where it is impossible for them to succeed at this check.

You are under no obligation to ever talk to the creature again after that point. You can leave it there. Quote, "If the creature does not break free of the trap, you can keep it bound for as long as you dare."

If you decide you want the creature to perform a service, quote, "You can attempt to compel the creature to perform a service by describing the service and perhaps offering some sort of reward." Perhaps. You are under no obligation, per the limits of the spell, to offer it anything. The subsequent Charisma check is an attempt to overwhelm the creature's free will with your own force of personality. If the creature cannot break free, then you are free to repeat your demands once every day, forever, until it caves.

Your subjective definition of "unreasonable" has no bearing whatsoever on these negotiations. That's entirely up to the DM because he is the one that knows the personality of the creature. And there are few things seem unreasonable when the alternative is staying locked in a room by yourself for eternity.

Mechanically? Yes, planar binding is an absurdly broken spell. It should never be approached in a purely mechanical manner. There should always be story consequences for using this spell, and they should always change with each and every new creature. Yes there is plenty of advice for making as fool-proof a binding as possible but it is never absolute. There is always a loophole. And always a point where a creature will say, "**** it. When this is over I'm coming for you and I don't care what you threaten me with."

[Psyren]

You are allowing your personal definition "unreasonable" to dictate the entire limits of the spell.

Except I'm not limiting the whole spell. You can absolutely take time to dictate reasonable terms which the entity will then have to engage with, and therefore has a chance to lose. What you can't do is set no terms so that you can cast a +20 spell to let you do an end-run around the spell's provisions.

[Doctor Awkward]

Except I'm not limiting the whole spell. You can absolutely take time to dictate reasonable terms which the entity will then have to engage with, and therefore has a chance to lose. What you can't do is set no terms so that you can cast a +20 spell to let you do an end-run around the spell's provisions.

What provisions?

Planar binding isn't a negotiation unless you, the caster, wish it to be.

This is spelled out very clearly in the text. You compel the creature to perform a service by describing what you want it to do. That's it. "Be my unquestioning slave for the duration of the spell," is well within bounds and takes much less than six seconds to say. The trapped creature does not get to dictate terms during a planar binding. At all. You are not asking for favors. You are compelling submission with the Charisma check.

Once again, yes, this is an incredibly powerful effect given the possible results. This is why it's emphasized over and over again how incredibly dangerous the consequences of doing this can be for the caster.

[Psyren]

What provisions?

The need to roll at all, and the fact that "unreasonable commands are never agreed to."

[Crake]

The subsequent Charisma check is an attempt to overwhelm the creature's free will with your own force of personality. If the creature cannot break free, then you are free to repeat your demands once every day, forever, until it caves.

I'm glad someone understands how the spell works :smalltongue:

[RatElemental]

If the original caster is dead, what charisma value do you use for the opposed roll if the creature tries to escape?

[Crake]

If the original caster is dead, what charisma value do you use for the opposed roll if the creature tries to escape?

Presumably you'd use the caster's charisma score at the time of casting the spell, since that is what set the "strength" of the spell at the time. Even if the caster's cha score goes down later, the spell was cast with that level of charisma, and so the DC shouldn't change.

[Calthropstu]

You are allowing your personal definition "unreasonable" to dictate the entire limits of the spell.

Let me explain as plainly as possible what is happening here when you cast this spell: you are luring an extra dimensional creature into a trap where it is held forever.

Yes. Forever.
It is imprisoned in the circle permanently.

Do you see the duration line of this spell? Instantaneous.
Quote, "The called creature is held in the trap until it agrees to perform one service in return for its freedom."

Yes, there are a couple of different options for escape. If you seal the circle against both dimensional travel and the spell resistance of the creature, then once per day it can attempt an opposed Charisma check against you to break free. It is very easy to reach a point against certain creatures where it is impossible for them to succeed at this check.

You are under no obligation to ever talk to the creature again after that point. You can leave it there. Quote, "If the creature does not break free of the trap, you can keep it bound for as long as you dare."

If you decide you want the creature to perform a service, quote, "You can attempt to compel the creature to perform a service by describing the service and perhaps offering some sort of reward." Perhaps. You are under no obligation, per the limits of the spell, to offer it anything. The subsequent Charisma check is an attempt to overwhelm the creature's free will with your own force of personality. If the creature cannot break free, then you are free to repeat your demands once every day, forever, until it caves.

Your subjective definition of "unreasonable" has no bearing whatsoever on these negotiations. That's entirely up to the DM because he is the one that knows the personality of the creature. And there are few things seem unreasonable when the alternative is staying locked in a room by yourself for eternity.

Mechanically? Yes, planar binding is an absurdly broken spell. It should never be approached in a purely mechanical manner. There should always be story consequences for using this spell, and they should always change with each and every new creature. Yes there is plenty of advice for making as fool-proof a binding as possible but it is never absolute. There is always a loophole. And always a point where a creature will say, "**** it. When this is over I'm coming for you and I don't care what you threaten me with."

Forever? I believe you are mistaken. You may want to check magic circle.

Once you do, you will realise how bad it is to leave it too long... you've just called a very hostile outsider with every incentive to run down the clock because LOL I AM ON THE MORTAL PLANE AND CAN (save people/ have fun/murder people) ALL I WANT.

[NNescio]

Presumably you'd use the caster's charisma score at the time of casting the spell, since that is what set the "strength" of the spell at the time. Even if the caster's cha score goes down later, the spell was cast with that level of charisma, and so the DC shouldn't change.

There is no DC. It's an opposed ability check.

[Crake]

There is no DC. It's an opposed ability check.

The question I was replying to was with regards to the daily charisma check that the captured creature could attempt in order to escape. The DC for that charisma check is "(DC 15 + ½ your caster level + your Cha modifier)", +5 if you employ a calling diagram.


Forever? I believe you are mistaken. You may want to check magic circle.

Once you do, you will realise how bad it is to leave it too long... you've just called a very hostile outsider with every incentive to run down the clock because LOL I AM ON THE MORTAL PLANE AND CAN (save people/ have fun/murder people) ALL I WANT.

Except you can recast the circle, or employ a permanent circle via wondrous architecture.

[Doctor Awkward]

Forever? I believe you are mistaken. You may want to check magic circle.

Once you do, you will realise how bad it is to leave it too long... you've just called a very hostile outsider with every incentive to run down the clock because LOL I AM ON THE MORTAL PLANE AND CAN (save people/ have fun/murder people) ALL I WANT.

If you really want to go down that particular rabbit hole:

https://imgur.com/ZjvfUPw

But then:
https://imgur.com/3Xt3DfQ

So by RAW, you cannot use the magic circle spell to create your trap for a planar binding because you cannot call the creature within one round of casting the magic circle spell.

[Calthropstu]

If you really want to go down that particular rabbit hole:

https://imgur.com/ZjvfUPw

But then:
https://imgur.com/3Xt3DfQ

So by RAW, you cannot use the magic circle spell to create your trap for a planar binding because you cannot call the creature within one round of casting the magic circle spell.

lol nice. Planar binding is truly broken then.
Though I suppose you could read it as casting the next round means BEGIN the casting. But yeah. I could see a gm saying lol nope from that.

[Crake]

If you really want to go down that particular rabbit hole:

https://imgur.com/ZjvfUPw

But then:
https://imgur.com/3Xt3DfQ

So by RAW, you cannot use the magic circle spell to create your trap for a planar binding because you cannot call the creature within one round of casting the magic circle spell.

I mean, planar binding has it's own language that would presumably override the magic circle's language, as being more specific. Magic circle's language is for using it as a trap in general, while planar binding is specifically for using it as a trap with planar binding.

After all, there are other calling spells that could theoretically be used in conjunction with a magic circle, like gate

[RatElemental]

Except you can recast the circle, or employ a permanent circle via wondrous architecture.

Even if you carved the circle into the floor or something, it could still have straw fall on it.

[Calthropstu]

Even if you carved the circle into the floor or something, it could still have straw fall on it.

recasting the circle doesn't exactly work anyways. It's trapped in the old circle, not the new one, and nothing in the spell suggests it's renewable. In fact, it pretty much states it isn't by saying "the binding must be cast within 1 round."

[Doctor Awkward]

I mean, planar binding has it's own language that would presumably override the magic circle's language, as being more specific. Magic circle's language is for using it as a trap in general, while planar binding is specifically for using it as a trap with planar binding.

After all, there are other calling spells that could theoretically be used in conjunction with a magic circle, like gate


I would personally say so, but the technical issue is that because planar binding directly references the magic circle spell when describing the only viable method through which the magical trap for the creature can be constructed, it is therefore relying on on the text in magic circle to supply the specifics for how the trap works and what the rules are for using it. Everything else in planar binding is strictly rules for what you can do after the creature is trapped. Unless this was addressed in a web article or Dragon Magazine material that I haven't seen, I'm content to call this a legitimate rules dysfunction that must be hand-waved away because otherwise planar binding cannot function as written.

But this is a little outside the scope of the threat.


Speaking of hand-waving however, the bottom line is that, once a creature is trapped, if you wish to compel service you must succeed on an opposed Charisma check.

Can you Take 10 on this check?
Per the rules, the Take 10 rules that apply to skill checks also apply to ability checks. Those rules state you may Take 10 any time you are not facing threats or distractions. The fact that there is a potentially catastrophic result for a critical failure on this particular check is irrelevant for Take 10, as you can face similar such results for failing many other skill checks, such as Disable Device, Balancing on a ledge, Climbing a cliff, Swimming across a perfectly calm moat, Diplomacy to prevent an Unfriendly NPC from going hostile towards you, Craft (alchemy) to mix up some high explosives, and so on. If you rule that the penalty for a natural 1 on a planar binding Charisma check constitutes a "threat" that bars you from using Take 10, then you would likewise be unable to Take 10 in all of those similar moderate-to-high-risk circumstances for which the rule was clearly designed: "purely a safety measure —you know (or expect) that an average roll will succeed but fear that a poor roll might fail, so you elect to settle for the average roll (a 10)."

The rules do likewise define in other places what does constitute a threat and what can serve as a distraction. If you are free from these things, then you may Take 10 on any check unless the particular check specifically forbids it (such as Use Magic Device).

So by RAW, yes, you may Take 10 on your Charisma check to compel service from a creature called with planar binding, but in doing so you run the risk that the opposing creature might not and you must wait another day to try again. This rule applies in reverse and you could easily be faced with a creature that you lose to if they also Take 10.


If in your games you always want that immense element of risk associated with planar binding negotiations to be in place, then it's perfectly reasonable to forbid your player from Taking 10 on this check. I probably wouldn't even blink at such a house-rule were I in that game, but it is still a house-rule.