Is a Planar Binding Sorcerer tier 1?

[magicalmagicman]

I can't think of any problem a 9th, 11th, or 15th level druid can solve that can't also be solved by a 10th, 12th, or 16th level sorcerer binding the right outsiders for the job.

[el minster]

In my personal opinion planear binding is some of the biggest cheese out there, also you don't have much on-demand power which is the whole point of the sorcerer.

[Asmotherion]

Well, I am of the oppinion that a Sorcerer who picks:

-Planar Binding Line (With Magic Circle Spells)
-Polymorph+Alter Self Line
-Summon Monster+Summon Undead Line (Interchangable between levels).
-Shrink Item
-Celerity Line
-Arcane Fusion Line
-Arcane Spellsurge
-Minor/Major Creation+Fabricate
-Optionally Animate Dead-Create (Greater) Undead.
-At high levels Time Stop, Gate, Limited Wish, Disjunction and Possibly Wish
-Thematic spells of choice for long duration blasting, Imunities etc.

Together with a good knowlage of the Monster Manuals/Monsters in general is Definitely Tier 1. It all comes down to System Mastery in the end.

Persistant Spell and other metamagics can get this to overkill.

[Troacctid]

Tier ratings cover all 20 levels, but the highest weight goes to mid levels (approximately 6–12). Sorcerers don't get lesser planar binding until level 10, which means they can expect to go more than half their career without it. If you're hoping to hang your hat on that one trick, that's far from ideal. Meanwhile, most T1s are doing the same or similar tricks at least level sooner and with a lower opportunity cost.

[Sutr]

See above but part of the problem lies in that their isn't as much strong difference between 1-2 as there is between 2-3. In my opinion 3-4 have a similar problem. Normally when balancing if you are being weakening tier 1 you should do the same to 2.

I see the definitions as
Tier 1 Shroedinger's wizard
Tier 2 Shroedinger's wizard a level late with a little less unknowns.
Tier 3: Target the Monster Manuals were built for
Tier 4: The designers were not that great can beat 95% of the monsters in print with a party of 4.
Tier 5: Need some help to beat the roundup of MM monsters but can still succeed.
Tier 6: NPC classes, designers confused how adept ended up not here.

[newguydude1]

Tier ratings cover all 20 levels, but the highest weight goes to mid levels (approximately 6–12). Sorcerers don't get lesser planar binding until level 10, which means they can expect to go more than half their career without it. If you're hoping to hang your hat on that one trick, that's far from ideal. Meanwhile, most T1s are doing the same or similar tricks at least level sooner and with a lower opportunity cost.

what is tier of sorcerer using improved familiar to get mirror mephit?

[Troacctid]

Tiers are also designed to measure a weighted average power level across multiple bands of optimization, prioritizing mid-op PO. The mirror mephit trick would receive a very low weight, and would have little impact on the class's tier as a result.

[Karl Aegis]

Sorcerer by itself is close enough to be Tier 1 that choosing Planar Binding doesn't help it much. Turns out there is very little difference in getting spells two levels early instead of three levels early.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I tried explaining this in another thread. One trick does not a tier ranking make. It has specific hurdles, foils, and limitations that the broader overall tools of a caster don't have more generally and is rarely if ever exclusive to any one class or even group of classes.

PB in particular has the HD limits and its subjects, to a man, are all extraplanar and subject to being returned with a single spell that they can do very little or nothing about. The outsiders all have stuff that is outsider specific to get in their way and the elementals just plain aren't impressive because of the HD cap.

Anyone can get a few castings of the spell every so often from a feat (planar touchstone [catlogues of enlightenment]).

Virtually anything that's not a combat problem can be solved -directly- by the casters' spells since, in an overwhelming majority of cases all you'd be calling the creature for is to produce the spell from its SLAs or a similar effect from some other ability.

And, of course, no discussion of this subject is complete without mentioning the GM dependence of the spell. Unlike most spells, which require the GM to choose to disallow their effect, PB requires the GM to okay it. "Impossible demands or unreasonable commands are never agreed to." Impossible is what it is but "unreasonable" is a judgement call on the called creature/ GM's part, plain and simple.


Meanwhile, any of the T1 classes can do just about everything that can be done without having to rely on another creature to do it since they can bend their magic to the task directly in a way that's typically harder to counter or resist than if a called creature did it.

Sorcerer, regardless of its spell selection, is T2 class. If you -break- planar binding by abusing cheese, you can do all the things but that requires a -much- more permissive GM attitude than simply sticking to RAW.

[newguydude1]

I tried explaining this in another thread. One trick does not a tier ranking make. It has specific hurdles, foils, and limitations that the broader overall tools of a caster don't have more generally and is rarely if ever exclusive to any one class or even group of classes.

PB in particular has the HD limits and its subjects, to a man, are all extraplanar and subject to being returned with a single spell that they can do very little or nothing about. The outsiders all have stuff that is outsider specific to get in their way and the elementals just plain aren't impressive because of the HD cap.

Anyone can get a few castings of the spell every so often from a feat (planar touchstone [catlogues of enlightenment]).

Virtually anything that's not a combat problem can be solved -directly- by the casters' spells since, in an overwhelming majority of cases all you'd be calling the creature for is to produce the spell from its SLAs or a similar effect from some other ability.

And, of course, no discussion of this subject is complete without mentioning the GM dependence of the spell. Unlike most spells, which require the GM to choose to disallow their effect, PB requires the GM to okay it. "Impossible demands or unreasonable commands are never agreed to." Impossible is what it is but "unreasonable" is a judgement call on the called creature/ GM's part, plain and simple.


Meanwhile, any of the T1 classes can do just about everything that can be done without having to rely on another creature to do it since they can bend their magic to the task directly in a way that's typically harder to counter or resist than if a called creature did it.

Sorcerer, regardless of its spell selection, is T2 class. If you -break- planar binding by abusing cheese, you can do all the things but that requires a -much- more permissive GM attitude than simply sticking to RAW.

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

if you dont let players use pb exactly the way other npcs are using it then you are house ruling.

solving problems by getting someone else to do it is the same as solving the problem by getting a spell from a wizard friend. problem gets solved. except wizard needs a friend, where as sorcerer just needs to enslave an outsider.

you dont need a much more permissive gm attitude. you just need to have a normal dm that doesnt rages at pb and tries to pass off his house rule as raw.

[Zanos]

I want to say no because the sorcerer is still competing against other tier 1s, who get access to planar binding a level earlier and can use the spell much better by combining it with other spells. And as others have mentioned, you don't gain access to lesser planar binding until level 10. The trunamer is arguably a tier 1 at level 20 with conjuctive gate, but does that make it a tier 1? I would say no.


I tried explaining this in another thread. One trick does not a tier ranking make.
Planar binding isn't one trick, though. It's one spell that tells you to take a look at any outsider or elemental printed in the games and pick whatever you want. That means that you can use it to replicate any SLAs they possess, and leverage all their skills, ability scores, feats, unique abilities, etc.


PB in particular has the HD limits and its subjects, to a man, are all extraplanar and subject to being returned with a single spell that they can do very little or nothing about.
They get a save. Most creatures are severely crippled if not killed when they fail will saves against 5th+ level spells.


Anyone can get a few castings of the spell every so often from a feat (planar touchstone [catlogues of enlightenment]).
You also need magic circle against x and dimensional anchor to successfully leverage planar binding, but assuming you have all those, how you got them doesn't really affect how powerful they are. Feats are very powerful, and you can become tier 1 by virtue of them alone.


Virtually anything that's not a combat problem can be solved -directly- by the casters' spells since, in an overwhelming majority of cases all you'd be calling the creature for is to produce the spell from its SLAs or a similar effect from some other ability.
The limit on your own spell slots is much tighter than the limit on the number of outsiders you can call.


And, of course, no discussion of this subject is complete without mentioning the GM dependence of the spell. Unlike most spells, which require the GM to choose to disallow their effect, PB requires the GM to okay it. "Impossible demands or unreasonable commands are never agreed to." Impossible is what it is but "unreasonable" is a judgement call on the called creature/ GM's part, plain and simple.
I am pretty sure nearly every printed setting where planar travel functions contains examples of evil wizards pressing fiends into service with planar binding. 'Serve me or be destroyed' is daily life for most outsiders, and the spell contains specific provisions for open ended commands like that.


Meanwhile, any of the T1 classes can do just about everything that can be done without having to rely on another creature to do it since they can bend their magic to the task directly in a way that's typically harder to counter or resist than if a called creature did it.
Yes, but they would be getting a lower RoI on their spell slots using them directly in most cases.


Sorcerer, regardless of its spell selection, is T2 class.
Fundamentally disagree. Intelligent spell selection and knowledge of certain tricks can allow a sorcerer to replicate every other spell on their list, or massively expand their own spells known to such a point where it doesn't matter. The traditional tier list doesn't really take optimization into account. An intelligently optimized sorcerer can definitely approach tier 1, but the reason it isn't a tier 1 is because 'real' tier 1s need nearly no effort other than employing their natural class abilities.


If you -break- planar binding by abusing cheese, you can do all the things but that requires a -much- more permissive GM attitude than simply sticking to RAW.
You aren't breaking planar binding with cheese, planar binding is just broken for players. NPCs in many settings are already doing this. It's not some wacky woo interpretation of the rules to use planar binding to summon an army of outsiders to beat people up for you.

[Kelb_Panthera]

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

if you dont let players use pb exactly the way other npcs are using it then you are house ruling.

solving problems by getting someone else to do it is the same as solving the problem by getting a spell from a wizard friend. problem gets solved. except wizard needs a friend, where as sorcerer just needs to enslave an outsider.

you dont need a much more permissive gm attitude. you just need to have a normal dm that doesnt rages at pb and tries to pass off his house rule as raw.

Several of the points in the OP of that thread are contradictory to the OP's thesis. In any case, he's arguing precedent and logical inference, not hard and fast rules or even guidelines. He, like you, was dramatically invested in this particular interpretation of the spell and its uses, though I won't engage in conjecture as to why.

The point remains that you have to accept his arguments as to what is "reasonable" for the purpose of PB's function as being, themselves, reasonable. Not everyone will. I certainly don't. You obviously do.

It's a one-sided deal, certainly, but it -is- a deal struck or that clause in the spell would be without meaning. At the risk of triggering some folks; servitude ultimately -must- be agreed to. Whatever methods are used to -try- to compel someone to servitude, the victim must -choose- if he will suffer those attempts until those who try to compel him give up or he dies OR if he will capitulate and accept servitude.

In D&D you can dominate a creature to compel him regardless of his will or use mindrape or programmed amnesia to change his mind yourself. Anything less is ultimately a choice.

You've got to get the creature to at least be willing to consider the service and its reward, even if that reward is mere freedom from the trap, before you ever get to make the cha check and where that line lies is a GM call. Once you're there, it can be the crappiest deal you can imagine and if you win the check, he takes it but until then you're not getting anything.

As an example, there's simply no way, period, you can convince a mere pit-fiend that freedom from the trap in exchange for trying to kill Asmodeus himself is anything less than complicated suicide. It's not only unreasonable it's impossible in any but the most strictly technical sense*. You sweeten the pot with a solid plan, some kind of material support, and/ or even the mere promised existence of a conspiracy working toward that end then make your Cha check and we'll see. You might be able to find a GM that disagrees with this interpretation as either too restrictive or too lenient but that's the point; it -is- an interpretation of the lore, the game rules as they stand, and the stats of the creature and its proposed foe.

*in the most strictly technical sense, it's not impossible that the two come to blows and the pit-fiend gets once-in-an-eternity lucky and rolls nothing but 20s while big A rolls nothing but 1s for as long as it takes for the pit-fiend to win but that chance is so vanishingly small that no statistician would call this task anything but functionally impossible.

[newguydude1]

Several of the points in the OP of that thread are contradictory to the OP's thesis. In any case, he's arguing precedent and logical inference, not hard and fast rules or even guidelines. He, like you, was dramatically invested in this particular interpretation of the spell and its uses, though I won't engage in conjecture as to why.

no, its the opposite. your the one dramatically invested in this particular interpretation of the spell and its uses because you dont like how powerful it is, and your telling everyone is wrong because you want them to be wrong.

"Planar Binding: The spell lets you attempt to trap up to three outsiders of no more than 12 Hit Dice, which can then be forced to do your bidding. This kind of coercion, however, becomes much easier if the outsider is offered a reward or bribe. Lesser planar binding and greater planar binding also have their uses if you are not limited by spells known."

how is this not saying you force outsiders to do your bidding. how is this logicial inference. how is this not hard and fast rules. how is this not guidelines.

"Mortals can make binding agreements with outsiders. Spells such as lesser planar ally, planar ally, and greater planar ally allow a spellcaster to bargain for the services of an outsider or elemental. The planar binding spells work in a similar manner, allowing a character to task a particular creature in return for its freedom."

how this isnt saying your trading freedom for temporary servitude. how is this logicial inference. how is this not hard and fast rules. how is this not guidelines.

just because you say its something doesnt make it true. tell me how forced to do your bidding is wrong logical inference and not even guidelines.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I want to say no because the sorcerer is still competing against other tier 1s, who get access to planar binding a level earlier and can use the spell much better by combining it with other spells.

If tiers mean anything, then they can't be moving around all willy-nilly based on any particular setup.

If the question was "can a sorcerer built around planar binding keep up with average T1 casters in play ?" I'd say the answer was "probably." It's not at all certain one way or the other. That wasn't the question though. The question was "is it tier 1?" and it's not. It has very little ability to switch what it can do around without jumping through substantial hoops.


And as others have mentioned, you don't gain access to lesser planar binding until level 10. The trunamer is arguably a tier 1 at level 20 with conjuctive gate, but does that make it a tier 1? I would say no.

DW kobold can do it at 9, just like a wizard. That's entirely beside the point. Neither this nor the truenamer is anything but what they are. Like I said, 1 trick does not a tier ranking make.


Planar binding isn't one trick, though. It's one spell that tells you to take a look at any outsider or elemental printed in the games and pick whatever you want. That means that you can use it to replicate any SLAs they possess, and leverage all their skills, ability scores, feats, unique abilities, etc.

I'd be amazed at how often this is overstated if I wasn't used to it. Because of how it's staggered, the planar binding line not only doesn't let you choose from "any outsider or elemental printed" it doesn't even let you pick one that's on your level before planar binding at level 12 unless you're finding an early access point like using artificer to pull LPB off of the demonologist list as a 3rd level spell at level 3. Yeah, that's a thing.

As such, you get access to only some of the outsiders and elementals in print at any given point and while the outsiders can go one way or the other, the elementals are pretty universally weak for the level you can get them since they rarely have any noteworthy abilities that don't come with a metric crap-ton of extra HD. Even among outsiders you're gonna have to dig like you're looking for buried treasure to find anything more capable than you are until GPB at 16, and even then the list is a sparse one.


They get a save. Most creatures are severely crippled if not killed when they fail will saves against 5th+ level spells.

Yes but with most such spells there are ways for a PC to mitigate them on himself or even on allies, if not outright block them. There's not much to be done about the various "go home, outsider" effects except hope the creature's natural defenses are adequate. It makes a -big- difference.


You also need magic circle against x and dimensional anchor to successfully leverage planar binding, but assuming you have all those, how you got them doesn't really affect how powerful they are. Feats are very powerful, and you can become tier 1 by virtue of them alone.

By that interpretation, -every- class is T1 until you actually build it and fail to do something like that. That's a pretty meaningless way of setting tiers.



The limit on your own spell slots is much tighter than the limit on the number of outsiders you can call.

Unless your adventuring days are absolute marathons, it's not a meaningful difference. Wands, staves, mementos magica, and rings of wizardry all exist to loosen that up. Then there's stuff like arcane fusion and spell matrix to extend what you can do even further and runestaves expand your options just like the staves and wands do.


I am pretty sure nearly every printed setting where planar travel functions contains examples of evil wizards pressing fiends into service with planar binding. 'Serve me or be destroyed' is daily life for most outsiders, and the spell contains specific provisions for open ended commands like that.

It can be. That's precedent not rules text. What the rules say is that unreasonable requests are never heeded and outsiders that are abused or merely annoyed may come back to haunt you once their services is expired and what fictional precedent says is that stuff like this -always- comes back to haunt you. If you want to stick to fictional precedent, cool. Enjoy being hunted like a dog by cosmic forces that think you're too big for your britches.


Yes, but they would be getting a lower RoI on their spell slots using them directly in most cases.

20 minutes +1 round +X days, a level 5, level 4, and a level 3 spell slot to perform the ritual to get a 6hd, likely CR <6 outsider at level 10. Pretty sure just dropping a level 5 SoD in the actual fight will be a much more efficient use of magic and time unless you have some way to make certain the conjured minion lasts more than one fight. Conjuring one up just to throw down a spell you don't have access to in some other way seems even more wasteful.

Nevermind the opportunity cost of 2 of your precious spells known (not counting DA since it's actually good for a whole lot more than just this), 3 if you want to cover the whole alignment wheel, when you could just pick up a scroll if you need a minion. Unlike a T1, you don't get to change those spells known the next day so they represent a substantial investment of your day-to-day power even on days you -don't- use them since that's one less possible spell you could've cast.


Fundamentally disagree. Intelligent spell selection and knowledge of certain tricks can allow a sorcerer to replicate every other spell on their list, or massively expand their own spells known to such a point where it doesn't matter. The traditional tier list doesn't really take optimization into account. An intelligently optimized sorcerer can definitely approach tier 1, but the reason it isn't a tier 1 is because 'real' tier 1s need nearly no effort other than employing their natural class abilities.

You say you disagree but the latter half of this paragraph is exactly my point. I'm not saying planar binding isn't powerful, it certainly can be. I'm not even saying it can't expand a sorcerer's options. Again, it can. What I'm saying is that it makes a bunch of things a sorcerer could otherwise do have a shared hard counter that they otherwise wouldn't and that the conjuring of a minion is exactly the kind of hoop a T2 has to jump through to expand his options that a T1 doesn't, that makes up the chief distinction between tiers 1 and 2.



You aren't breaking planar binding with cheese, planar binding is just broken for players. NPCs in many settings are already doing this. It's not some wacky woo interpretation of the rules to use planar binding to summon an army of outsiders to beat people up for you.

If you're digging it up early, picking out obscure monsters for their unique powers that exceed what you should be able to do, and using it to generate overwhelming numbers for combat situations, all while presuming the GM is just gonna go along with it all, that's cheese. That's Limburger. It's also a bit entitled if I'm being brutally honest.

[Kelb_Panthera]

no, its the opposite. your the one dramatically invested in this particular interpretation of the spell and its uses because you dont like how powerful it is, and your telling everyone is wrong because you want them to be wrong.

So my choosing to refrain from conjecture is a courtesy not reciprocated. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. You've mentioned in the past that this is your entire method of enjoying the game, my dude. It's one of many for me and as a GM I know how to handle it in many ways more than just hard-blocking it.

Who's more invested here?


"Planar Binding: The spell lets you attempt to trap up to three outsiders of no more than 12 Hit Dice, which can then be forced to do your bidding. This kind of coercion, however, becomes much easier if the outsider is offered a reward or bribe. Lesser planar binding and greater planar binding also have their uses if you are not limited by spells known."

Two things. That's from complete mage in a section that is advice on how to play. It's not rules text. It also -explicitly- says that the "coercion" can be made easier by offering incentives. If they have no ability to refuse, why would you need to incentivize them at all?


how is this not saying you force outsiders to do your bidding. how is this logicial inference. how is this not hard and fast rules. how is this not guidelines.

It's not rules because it's not rules text. It's text about planar binding but it's not part of the spell's rules. It's logical inference because it doesn't explicitly say what you want it to say. In fact, it suggests what I have been arguing as much or more than it does what you have been.

It does certainly suggest that you compel them to a certain degree, just not an absolute one. It is guidelines, just play guidelines rather than rule guidelines. It's a subtle but important distinction.


"Mortals can make binding agreements with outsiders. Spells such as lesser planar ally, planar ally, and greater planar ally allow a spellcaster to bargain for the services of an outsider or elemental. The planar binding spells work in a similar manner, allowing a character to task a particular creature in return for its freedom."

ToM in the introduction on pact magic. It's a quick overview of the concept of -bargaining- with outsiders as a form of lesser pact magic. It's not only not rules text, it's not even a guideline for play. It's essentially an off-hand comment on a related topic in a section about something else entirely.


how this isnt saying your trading freedom for temporary servitude. how is this logicial inference. how is this not hard and fast rules. how is this not guidelines.

That's about as far as you can get from an exhaustive discussion on the topic of that line of spells. It says nothing to imply that's -all- they get for their service. Indeed, it would be a very strange place to elaborate on the details. It's in a section that is explicitly about -bargaining- for service, making pacts. The implication, extremely limited and reaching as it is for -either- of our arguments, is that to cast planar binding is to form a pact with the subject of the spell. That is, to strike a bargain with it to serve you in some way in exchange for -at least- its freedom.


just because you say its something doesnt make it true. tell me how forced to do your bidding is wrong logical inference and not even guidelines.

Right back at ya, hoss.

Nobody's saying it isn't coercive. That's pretty obvious. The question always has been whether it's absolute and it plainly, explicitly isn't. One-sided, unfair, ignoble, domineering; sure, it's all of those things. It's a real d-bag thing to do to a sapient creature. It's not dominate monster though. It's not unlimited, "whatever you want" control of the creature conjured. It's a bargain struck, albeit a really crap one for the conjured creature.

[Anthrowhale]

Mother Cyst+Versatile Spellcaster are typically better for a Sorcerer wanting minions as they give access to a Dominate Person effect at level 6 and a Dominate Monster effect at level 12. On the plus side, there is no question about the effect and it kicks in much earlier. On the minus side, you need to worry about dispellability.

[Asmotherion]

Tier ratings cover all 20 levels, but the highest weight goes to mid levels (approximately 6–12). Sorcerers don't get lesser planar binding until level 10, which means they can expect to go more than half their career without it. If you're hoping to hang your hat on that one trick, that's far from ideal. Meanwhile, most T1s are doing the same or similar tricks at least level sooner and with a lower opportunity cost.

Well, there is the Halastar's Fetch Line that comes online by level 8 that allows similar (though more limited) utility.

An other point of interest is how the Sorcerer will have a higher Cha score which can help both with Planar Binding and Negotiating Aliences with Called Creatures in general (by changing it's Disposition and possibly giving a reward).

Finally, the Summon Monster line indirectly gives you access to multiple spells that summoned creatures can cast by virtue of their spellcasting ability (so, no SLAs, just spells that don't cost xp).

I agree on the premise that slower spell progression hurts a lot, but the amount of spells you have access to is not half bad, as long as you choose wisely.

The real question thus is "is 1 level of slower progression really worth a drop in tier?". I question that, though I can agree that the premise is valid.

[Troacctid]

It's not just a level of delay. Every T1 class also has more spells known than you do.

[icefractal]

Honestly the T1-2 distinction has always felt pretty fuzzy to me. Like, what does "but can't do all the tricks" even mean when there are things like Psychic Reformation, binding, mind control, items, etc that allow access to pretty much any spell?

Now you could define it as "power as available in an average campaign, without any really high-op or reliance on specific sources". And that's reasonable (if somewhat subjective), but that's not the definition I see used - for example, tier comparisons with Wizard often assume use of loops and demiplanes to instantly swap and recharge spell load-out, which I'd call high-op bordering on TO - more so than planar binding cheese is.

[Troacctid]

Honestly the T1-2 distinction has always felt pretty fuzzy to me. Like, what does "but can't do all the tricks" even mean when there are things like Psychic Reformation, binding, mind control, items, etc that allow access to pretty much any spell?
That's a big part of why we changed the tier descriptions in the most recent update.

[Thunder999]

It's not tier 1 because the primary difference between tier 1 and 2 is that tier 1 can use many different 'tricks'

Tell a tier 1 character that they're in a dimensionally locked area and they swap planar binding and summon monster for other stuff, whereas a tier 2 goes "Darn, there goes my ability to beat most challenges"

Tier 1 and 2 are by far the closest tiers, since the difference does usually boil down to:
Tier 2 class "I can planar bind an army of outsiders, summon monster, teleport and fly"
Tier 1 class "I can do all of that while also knowing a dozen other spells of similar uselessness, making me much harder to shut down."

[newguydude1]

So my choosing to refrain from conjecture is a courtesy not reciprocated. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. You've mentioned in the past that this is your entire method of enjoying the game, my dude. It's one of many for me and as a GM I know how to handle it in many ways more than just hard-blocking it.

Who's more invested here?



Two things. That's from complete mage in a section that is advice on how to play. It's not rules text. It also -explicitly- says that the "coercion" can be made easier by offering incentives. If they have no ability to refuse, why would you need to incentivize them at all?



It's not rules because it's not rules text. It's text about planar binding but it's not part of the spell's rules. It's logical inference because it doesn't explicitly say what you want it to say. In fact, it suggests what I have been arguing as much or more than it does what you have been.

It does certainly suggest that you compel them to a certain degree, just not an absolute one. It is guidelines, just play guidelines rather than rule guidelines. It's a subtle but important distinction.



ToM in the introduction on pact magic. It's a quick overview of the concept of -bargaining- with outsiders as a form of lesser pact magic. It's not only not rules text, it's not even a guideline for play. It's essentially an off-hand comment on a related topic in a section about something else entirely.



That's about as far as you can get from an exhaustive discussion on the topic of that line of spells. It says nothing to imply that's -all- they get for their service. Indeed, it would be a very strange place to elaborate on the details. It's in a section that is explicitly about -bargaining- for service, making pacts. The implication, extremely limited and reaching as it is for -either- of our arguments, is that to cast planar binding is to form a pact with the subject of the spell. That is, to strike a bargain with it to serve you in some way in exchange for -at least- its freedom.



Right back at ya, hoss.

Nobody's saying it isn't coercive. That's pretty obvious. The question always has been whether it's absolute and it plainly, explicitly isn't. One-sided, unfair, ignoble, domineering; sure, it's all of those things. It's a real d-bag thing to do to a sapient creature. It's not dominate monster though. It's not unlimited, "whatever you want" control of the creature conjured. It's a bargain struck, albeit a really crap one for the conjured creature.

i copy what npcs do. which is enslavement. i have them attack things while i hit them with friendly fire that could kill him. i have them spend years in a room doing things. all in exchange for freedom. this is not a "unreasonable command" because wotc does it.

so if its not an unreasonable command, we go by the mechanics. which is opposed charisma check. lets say i use surge of fortune to beat it. 100% success chance.

so what is the result? 100% chance of grabbing and enslaving any outsider i want.

what exactly are you going on about again?

[InvisibleBison]

i copy what npcs do. which is enslavement. i have them attack things while i hit them with friendly fire that could kill him. i have them spend years in a room doing things. all in exchange for freedom. this is not a "unreasonable command" because wotc does it.

WotC doesn't exist. The quotes in the thread you linked to are examples of what the people who wrote them consider to be reasonable commands for a planar bound creature. Unless you're playing in a game being DMed by one of those people, they don't matter.

[Thunder999]

Planar binding definitely lets you just enslave stuff, that's how every printed use of it goes and how the mechanics work.

Presenting "Be my slave in return for eventual freedom" as reasonable is what that charisma check is all about.

[Segev]

Planar binding definitely lets you just enslave stuff, that's how every printed use of it goes and how the mechanics work.

Presenting "Be my slave in return for eventual freedom" as reasonable is what that charisma check is all about.
To be fair, you can offer pay or perks or bribes or the like to try to sweeten the deal. If you and your target are good aligned, you can even choose not to trap it and just bargain. (I don’t recommend this with evil outsiders.)

[magicalmagicman]

To be fair, you can offer pay or perks or bribes or the like to try to sweeten the deal. If you and your target are good aligned, you can even choose not to trap it and just bargain. (I don’t recommend this with evil outsiders.)

Yup it's both. WotC used planar binding both as consensual deals and as enslaved cannon fodder. I don't know what Kelb is going on about with his walls of text. All of it is just generalized and summarized... something. I get that he hates planar binding, but that's about it.

Like this


Two things. That's from complete mage in a section that is advice on how to play. It's not rules text. It also -explicitly- says that the "coercion" can be made easier by offering incentives. If they have no ability to refuse, why would you need to incentivize them at all?

What exactly is he saying regarding mages forcing outsiders to do their bidding?
Kelb claimed that the author of that planar binding is slavery post is "arguing precedent and logical inference, not hard and fast rules or even guidelines."
newguydude1 countered by showing it's not logical inference, but direct explicit explanation of what the spell does and what the player could/should do.
Then he responds by saying coercion is made easier by incentives and thus is proof that outsiders can refuse.

How is that relevant at all?
Did anyone say enslaved outsiders behave like dominated monsters? I'm reading all the pro PB posts and I don't see it being said at all.
Is he admitting he was wrong that those quotes were not logical inference but actual explicit explanations?

I can't follow.... he makes an outrageous claim, and responds to counter claims with... a strawman? Who here was saying outsiders can't refuse? Who here was saying outsiders behave like dominated monsters?

[Calthropstu]

A sorcerer with access to psychic reformation becomes the most broken tier 1 in the game.

A sorcerer is also the easiest to turn into a tier 6 with poor spell selection. So Sorcerers are literally the class with the highest cieling, lowest floor.

edit: in 3.5 it becomes even easier. I wish for page of spell knowledge. I wish for page of spell knowledge. I wish for page of spell knowledge. Yay, I have all the spells. But wait, there's more! "I wish for page of spell knowledge of the spell I was going to research."
Yay tier 1 brokenness by a sorcerer.

[Gnaeus]

I agree that planar binding is a binding that enforces the terms of the agreed service.

I do not agree that knowledge of the planar binding spell gives knowledge of all outsiders.

Who lacks Knowledge Planes as a class skill and doesn’t likely have a great Int? Sorcerers.

[Calthropstu]

I agree that planar binding is a binding that enforces the terms of the agreed service.

I do not agree that knowledge of the planar binding spell gives knowledge of all outsiders.

Who lacks Knowledge Planes as a class skill and doesn’t likely have a great Int? Sorcerers.

Very easily fixed with gather information (easily gained as a class skill and charisma based)