Am I Cheating?

[ecarden]

Our Eldritch Knight has the Mind Sliver covered, the Sting is to keep it prone, and yeah my DC is 17, but I have Chronal Shift, Silvery Barbs, Guidance; I Rest Cast daily, so I’m always blessed with my rituals and the Gift of Alacrity…I’ve done a lot to prepare for this. And yes, our familiars can activate items such as the Ring in this world, with no problems. Simply have to put it on a chain around her neck and attune her to it.

You obviously know your setting better than I, but I note you skip right over the consequences of demon summoning, unless demons are also your slaves? I'm also a bit concerned by your description here as Chronal Shift/Silvery Barbs compete for your reaction and Guidance is concentration, which is competing with quite a bit (and sort of irrelevant here, as you aren't making any rolls) and proning it is (1) impossible, it's immune to prone and (2) irrelevant, if it's contained by the magic circle.

But the broader issue based on my understanding of the situation that your DM has built a very high magic world and you're pushing on the boundaries of that in ways that are likely (in my view) to be anti-fun for the DM and other players and only get worse as you continue to advance.

This is something I struggle with as well. I would super enjoy a session of my Warlock doing magical research and experimentation to figure a bunch of stuff out and work on his absurd mission of convincing his Fiend patron to shift goals and stop trying to take over the Hells rather than do literally anything more productive. You know who wouldn't enjoy a 4 hour session of that? Literally everyone but me and maybe the DM. Solving problems is fun. Watching the Wizard solve problems is much more limited and declining fun.

You are not cheating, but cheese is of very limited entertainment to anyone not engaged in making/eating (depending on your metaphor) it.

[TheBrassDuke]

You obviously know your setting better than I, but I note you skip right over the consequences of demon summoning, unless demons are also your slaves? I'm also a bit concerned by your description here as Chronal Shift/Silvery Barbs compete for your reaction and Guidance is concentration, which is competing with quite a bit (and sort of irrelevant here, as you aren't making any rolls) and proning it is (1) impossible, it's immune to prone and (2) irrelevant, if it's contained by the magic circle.

But the broader issue based on my understanding of the situation that your DM has built a very high magic world and you're pushing on the boundaries of that in ways that are likely (in my view) to be anti-fun for the DM and other players and only get worse as you continue to advance.

This is something I struggle with as well. I would super enjoy a session of my Warlock doing magical research and experimentation to figure a bunch of stuff out and work on his absurd mission of convincing his Fiend patron to shift goals and stop trying to take over the Hells rather than do literally anything more productive. You know who wouldn't enjoy a 4 hour session of that? Literally everyone but me and maybe the DM. Solving problems is fun. Watching the Wizard solve problems is much more limited and declining fun.

You are not cheating, but cheese is of very limited entertainment to anyone not engaged in making/eating (depending on your metaphor) it.

The consequences are always going to be there, we know this. We’re encouraged to try our luck always, but I’ve just never even come close to being called a cheater before. And cheesewise, I’m just trying to summon a demon but take extra precautions, and so I don’t entirely understand. As for my reactions, they’re just options, not competing, or being used all at once.

At the Academy there is a little girl summoning demons all happily, her dad’s the Necromancy Professor…I don’t think I’m pushing anything. Our Artificer was given three homebrew and ridiculously powerful mechanical “familiars”, along with an entire Duchy and a number of contacts—because he was liked a lot. Our bugbear became created a sentient ax because he decided he wanted to confirm his crit and for that one session it was allowed. Knocked the soul right out of the guard and into the ax as a newborn soul. He also made a sentient creature out of marvelous pigments because of his natural 20 skill check (even tho we don’t do naturals on them). …I really doubt I’m pushing anything here.

All the research we do like that is out of game, too. I don’t take much spotlight because I’m working mid-game, and we’re playing via audio calls on Discord. So there’s a lot of time I’m simply just listening…

Honestly, I’m just annoyed the word “cheating” came up, because I’ve played various wizards far more powerful; my warlock in the last game was given powerful Dream artifacts…he was literally the Prince of Dreams at the end; I could have done some insane things making anything with Dream reality…I’m a laidback player and in it for the story. I take nat 1’s more than I Luck it, because sometimes it’s fun and I trust my DM.

Honestly it may be an OOC thing.

[ecarden]

Given that description, the overpowered nature probably isn't the issue. I tend to agree this is an OOC issue. People have bad days, just circle back and see what's going on. Alternately, I've known DMs who really don't like being put in the position of working through a bunch of rule interactions to figure out what ought to happen, but given the skillset we're talking about that seems less likely.

The one thing I would advise on is that in the OOC, it sounds like your DM may have a problem saying 'no' to people and is looking for a RAW reason to say no, I think figuring out why they're concerned about this is probably your best route forward. I will also say that 'I could break the game a lot more than I am' reads more as a threat than an argument, at least to me, though it's hard to read tone in text. Good luck.

[TheBrassDuke]

Given that description, the overpowered nature probably isn't the issue. I tend to agree this is an OOC issue. People have bad days, just circle back and see what's going on. Alternately, I've known DMs who really don't like being put in the position of working through a bunch of rule interactions to figure out what ought to happen, but given the skillset we're talking about that seems less likely.

The one thing I would advise on is that in the OOC, it sounds like your DM may have a problem saying 'no' to people and is looking for a RAW reason to say no, I think figuring out why they're concerned about this is probably your best route forward. I will also say that 'I could break the game a lot more than I am' reads more as a threat than an argument, at least to me, though it's hard to read tone in text. Good luck.

I wouldn’t say it’s a threat, only because I was told “You can basically do anything now, you can literally manifest whatever you dream.” My character had a huge problem with the artificer because of the way he was treated, and as a spiteful fey the DM dangled betrayal in front of me frequently (there’s a habit of trying to tempt my characters like this). Our DMPC Monk in that game turned out to be the turncoat actually, and we still kept her around. I resisted all temptation, because the aforementioned monk and bugbear spent a lot of time teaching my hag-raised character about being a good person. I tried really hard. 💪🏼

[Damon_Tor]

You can't focus on match and ignore the word "extends to" right before that. Extending a spell duration would not intuitively interact with concentration, certainly not the only reading. I don't see it being clear cut, this sounds like a DM's call, could go either way, though in this instants at least the DM seems to have taken your reading.

Concentration is a part of the duration though. Duration of a concentration spell is written as "Concentration, up to 1 hour" not "1 hour (and you have to concentrate)" Concentration isn't some separate mechanic that interacts with duration, concentration IS the duration.

[Boci]

Concentration is a part of the duration though. Duration of a concentration spell is written as "Concentration, up to 1 hour" not "1 hour (and you have to concentrate)" Concentration isn't some separate mechanic that interacts with duration, concentration IS the duration.

Concentration is part of duration yes, but so is the numerical value. And in my book, changing a duration from "concentration up to 1 hour" to "concentration up to 24 hours" has extended the duration, enough to qualify as having been extended to match a 24 hour duration. We're told to use plain English when interpreting rules, and to me, going from 1 hour to 24 can be described as "exceeds to match", independent of concentration.

If they'd said "the spell duration is replaced with this spell's duration" then I'd absolutely agree concentration was no longer a factor. So either they chose slopping wording, or they deliberately didn't say "replace".

[Damon_Tor]

So, no agreement then? First response says no concentration, second response says yes you still need concentration. As i said, sounds like a DM's call.

You can find a dissenting opinion on anything in the world. Flat Earth theory is still a thing. It doesn't mean there "isn't agreement" about the shape of the Earth.

[Damon_Tor]

Concentration is part of duration yes, but so is the numerical value. And in my book, changing a duration from "concentration up to 1 hour" to "concentration up to 24 hours" has extended the duration, enough to qualify as having been extended to match a 24 hour duration. We're told to use plain English when interpreting rules, and to me, going from 1 hour to 24 can be described as "exceeds to match", independent of concentration.

If they'd said "the spell duration is replaced with this spell's duration" then I'd absolutely agree concentration was no longer a factor. So either they chose slopping wording, or they deliberately didn't say "replace".

"Replace" would allow Planar Binding to shorten the duration of spells. "Extends" avoids that issue.

There's no way the intention of the spell is to require concentration: you can't concentrate on a spell for a year. You would die.

[Segev]

To answer whether you are cheating or not, we need to know what you are doing, specifically. If you have the rules lined up that say you can do it, it isn't cheating. Doesn't mean it has to be allowed, nor does it not being strictly within the RAW mean your DM should forbid it if it is cool and within the spirit of your narrative and won't break the game.

If the DM thinks summoning a dybbuk is going to break the game, then he should forbid it.

[Boci]

"Replace" would allow Planar Binding to shorten the duration of spells. "Extends" avoids that issue.

That's a good point, that would explain the wording.

There's no way the intention of the spell is to require concentration: you can't concentrate on a spell for a year. You would die.

That's only if you use planar binding on a creature summoned with another spell that requires concentration, so its entirely possibly that was the intention and to get the full year value out of it you'd need to find a candidate some other way.

[Segev]

Concentration is part of duration yes, but so is the numerical value. And in my book, changing a duration from "concentration up to 1 hour" to "concentration up to 24 hours" has extended the duration, enough to qualify as having been extended to match a 24 hour duration. We're told to use plain English when interpreting rules, and to me, going from 1 hour to 24 can be described as "exceeds to match", independent of concentration.

If they'd said "the spell duration is replaced with this spell's duration" then I'd absolutely agree concentration was no longer a factor. So either they chose slopping wording, or they deliberately didn't say "replace".

It says it extends it to 8 hours. "Concentration" is part of the duration. If it were extending it to "ConCentration, up to eight hours," it would say so. Instead, it says it extends it to "8 hours."

See Dominate Person for examples of the extension still including Concentration.

[Corran]

You can't focus on match and ignore the word "extends to" right before that. Extending a spell duration would not intuitively interact with concentration, certainly not the only reading. I don't see it being clear cut, this sounds like a DM's call, could go either way, though in this instants at least the DM seems to have taken your reading.

Concentration is part of the duration though. Not just because it's noted in the entry for duration. Think of it logically. A duration of 10 minutes concentration is a subset of a duration of 10 minutes. Removing concentration technically extends the duration, even before we go to the rest of planar binding's wording (ie extend to match).

[Eldariel]

So, no agreement then? First response says no concentration, second response says yes you still need concentration. As i said, sounds like a DM's call.

First has 15 upvotes, second one only the writer. So I think there's at least a strong consensus on the matter between people who have voted on that particular comment.

[Damon_Tor]

First has 15 upvotes, second one only the writer. So I think there's at least a strong consensus on the matter between people who have voted on that particular comment.

And the guy who answered no only plays martials.

[Boci]

Concentration is part of the duration though. Not just because it's noted in the entry for duration. Think of it logically. A duration of 10 minutes concentration is a subset of a duration of 10 minutes. Removing concentration technically extends the duration, even before we go to the rest of planar binding's wording (ie extend to match).

The problem I have with talking about concentration as a factor of extending a spell duration is: what has a longer duration -

Spell A: 1 minute

or

Spell B: Concentration up to 10 minutes

Would replacing spell B's duration with Spell A's be extended or reducing it?

Though its mostly academic at this point, people on this thread have made good argument for why the concentration would be removed, and segev pointed out there is a different format for increasing the duration whilst keeping concentration.

I might houserule this, since it seems like a good way of keeping planar binding in check, but I'll cross that bridge when I get to it. Might not be necessary if the mage doesn't have tomb of stilled tongues.

[TheBrassDuke]

The problem I have with talking about concentration as a factor of extending a spell duration is: what has a longer duration -

Spell A: 1 minute

or

Spell B: Concentration up to 10 minutes

Would replacing spell B's duration with Spell A's be extended or reducing it?

Though its mostly academic at this point, people on this thread have made good argument for why the concentration would be removed, and segev pointed out there is a different format for increasing the duration whilst keeping concentration.

I might houserule this, since it seems like a good way of keeping planar binding in check, but I'll cross that bridge when I get to it. Might not be necessary if the mage doesn't have tomb of stilled tongues.

Now I ended up not going forward with this anyway, at least at our current level/predicament. But I am going over it again in my head, maybe switching around the order here and there.

Step 1: Cast Glyph of Warding - Magic Circle, Inverted
Step 2a: Summon Greater Demon into the Circle - Dybbuk; get Truename* either with Ring or spell slot
Step 2b: Sapping Sting and Mind Sliver from Participants/Familiar via Ring of Spell Storing
Step 3: Tome-cast Planar Binding (Tome of the Stilled Tongue; ruled by DM it activates as Magic Item. I am still allowed to take my action and cast a leveled spell the same turn I cast another from the Tome as a Bonus Action)

*Monster Manual, p53

Side Note: DM says Vecna isn’t in this world, so I’ll never get a Midnight Text asking “wyd” from the guy. Sad. 😂

[meandean]

Ideally, asking a DM for a ruling in your favor works as follows:

1. You present your case
2. DM says "yes" or "no"

Pretty simple. Now, you're allowed to talk. If you forgot to make an important point, or didn't explain it well, or think the DM is genuinely misunderstanding something, then continued conversation can be constructive.

But, once it becomes clear that the DM gets what you're saying and simply doesn't want it in their game... please stop. Don't keep formulating lengthy point-by-point refutations of everything they say or write to you. It's only going to make both of you angry and unhappy.

[TheBrassDuke]

Ideally, asking a DM for a ruling in your favor works as follows:

1. You present your case
2. DM says "yes" or "no"

Pretty simple. Now, you're allowed to talk. If you forgot to make an important point, or didn't explain it well, or think the DM is genuinely misunderstanding something, then continued conversation can be constructive.

But, once it becomes clear that the DM gets what you're saying and simply doesn't want it in their game... please stop. Don't keep formulating lengthy point-by-point refutations of everything they say or write to you. It's only going to make both of you angry and unhappy.

Interestingly, I got a lengthy similar answer from our bugbear when I asked in my last game for an item of Find familiar. Mind you, he got a sentient ax with literally godly abilities tho. And was the champion of the fey…that I ruled over, and with more sway. I got the item with no problem, and that person was the only one annoyed, but still.

And frankly, it went as I said. I gave her that brief RAW reply, because we both know the rules for the most part and, again, trust one another. I didn’t ask again…think you’re making an assumption. Or a warning for readers. Idk.

She didn’t even say no, in case y’all were wondering. She only said there might be consequences, as always. The cheating bit was what frustrated me, because…a lot has been let go with the others, I bite my tongue. Hell, I’m not even being told I’m cheating explicitly, but it was a sour encounter all the same.

[ecarden]

This all sounds like an OOC problem where you feel the other players are being favored. I don't have a good solution for that problem, whether you're right or not. It's sounding like your options are, talk to your DM about it (preferably not in the context of a specific thing you want, just more generally) or don't and try to get over it, or leave the game.

[JackPhoenix]

Step 1: Cast Glyph of Warding - Magic Circle, Inverted

Why waste time and money on GoW?

Step 2a: Summon Greater Demon into the Circle - Dybbuk; get Truename* either with Ring or spell slot

*Monster Manual, p53

Dybbuk's not on the list of demons that have true names.

The issue isn't that you're cheating, but that the GM gets exactly what he deserves for the way he runs the game, and apparently doesn't see it's all his fault.

[Segev]

The problem I have with talking about concentration as a factor of extending a spell duration is: what has a longer duration -

Spell A: 1 minute

or

Spell B: Concentration up to 10 minutes

Would replacing spell B's duration with Spell A's be extended or reducing it?

I would say it is conditional. If a spell had a base duration of 1 minute, and got extended to "concentration, up to eight hours," I would have whichever duration is longer in practice apply to that instance. If the caster stops concentrating on it before one minute is up, it lasts for that minute. If the caster concentrates from the beginning and keeps concentrating after a minute has passed, it lasts for as long as he keeps concentrating, up to eight hours maximum.

I do not think this comes up in the rules anywhere, but that is how I would run it if it did and no further instruction were given.

[Damon_Tor]

I would say it is conditional. If a spell had a base duration of 1 minute, and got extended to "concentration, up to eight hours," I would have whichever duration is longer in practice apply to that instance. If the caster stops concentrating on it before one minute is up, it lasts for that minute. If the caster concentrates from the beginning and keeps concentrating after a minute has passed, it lasts for as long as he keeps concentrating, up to eight hours maximum.

I do not think this comes up in the rules anywhere, but that is how I would run it if it did and no further instruction were given.

This is really the only reading of that situation that makes sense.

[KorvinStarmast]

To be fair, I didn’t ask for these. I got the Spell Storing Ring at Lv 1 as my free magic item, and a going away gift as I went to the Magical Academy. I didn’t pick it.

Your DM is reaping the whirlwind that all Monty Haul DM's tend to experience.
I suggest that you ignore the on line guide, and the two of you sit down together and work out a mutual understanding of those spells. That way, you and your DM arrive at the answer in an agreed fashion.

I think this is what's happening:

1. You're following a guide that may have had you do dubious things to begin with, setting them up for an eyebrow raise
2. Long term minionmancy isn't something most people think about, it's usually primarily a forum/guide thing
3. The DM wasn't prepared for the consequences of handing out a Legendary spell book, and may be wondering if it overwrites an hour casting time, instead of just an action

I think that you are correct, and particularly point 2. Adding a second character/NPC for the PC to play is a particular style that does not necessarily fit the basic game template / action economy. Similar things crop up with the Simulacrum (even if it's only 1) who accompanies the PC. Particularly if the Sim is of a bard with a maxed Cha and the Inspiring Leader feat ...

So, no agreement then? First response says no concentration, second response says yes you still need concentration. As i said, sounds like a DM's call.

The accepted answer has a lot more up votes than the next one, something like 16 to 1, FWIW.

[Dork_Forge]

[QUOTE=KorvinStarmast;25509842]
I think that you are correct, and particularly point 2. Adding a second character/NPC for the PC to play is a particular style that does not necessarily fit the basic game template / action economy. Similar things crop up with the Simulacrum (even if it's only 1) who accompanies the PC. Particularly if the Sim is of a bard with a maxed Cha and the Inspiring Leader feat ...
/QUOTE]

I sense you have experience creating this kind of issue

[KorvinStarmast]

I think that you are correct, and particularly point 2. Adding a second character/NPC for the PC to play is a particular style that does not necessarily fit the basic game template / action economy. Similar things crop up with the Simulacrum (even if it's only 1) who accompanies the PC. Particularly if the Sim is of a bard with a maxed Cha and the Inspiring Leader feat ...

I sense you have experience creating this kind of issue

Yes, but Phoenix and I agreed together to keep it down to a dull roar in the interest of both narrative and playability coherence.
Most of the time, the Sim was either protecting the Paladin's family (Paladin's son was becoming an NPC bard) as a new keep was being built with the party's money,
or
the Sim was looking after the small fleet of ships we'd captured one at a time along with her usual job of training the crews in various weapons Sim and my Bard were proficient in: daggers, crossbows, rapiers, etc.
My favorite use of the sime was, however, at the campaign level as a decoy (being very present in one city) while the Bard herself was wearing an amulet of non detection and was a few thousand miles away doing something else ... and of course the Sim singing duets with my bard on Stage during some performances. (A generous DM will allow that to accrue Help/Advantage on a performance check ).

[Easy e]

If the GM says No, then the answer is NO.

No means no.

[TheBrassDuke]

If the GM says No, then the answer is NO.

No means no.

If you read above, they haven’t. This isn’t even the issue.

[KorvinStarmast]

If the GM says No, then the answer is NO.

No means no.

I'll get the popcorn, butter, salt and a large soda.

[quindraco]

If you read above, they haven’t. This isn’t even the issue.

I've now read this entire thread and I have yet to decipher what "issue" you're even facing. Your original post didn't give any examples of you doing anything mechanically, which meant we couldn't possibly answer if you were cheating or not, and the thread got messier from there. Do you have an actual issue you have a question about?

I did find some subsequent posts where you gave some hints what the issue is, but I'm not following in what possible context you'd be accused of cheating. It's not cheating to use Summon Greater Demon to summon a Dybbuk - that's what Summon Greater Demon is for. Doing it during downtime would be bad DMing, since the spell requires as a component blood from a freshly killed humanoid, so you'd have to engage in some sort of combat to cast the spell.

The only thing I can think of to guess as to why you'd be accused of cheating is that Dimension Door is a spell many players accidentally cheat with. Because it has a range of 500 feet it by definition targets the space you're teleporting into, which means by definition Dimension Door can't teleport through total cover. Most people play it like it can, which is simply false - contrast with Misty Step, which can teleport through (typically transparent) total cover.

[Dork_Forge]

The only thing I can think of to guess as to why you'd be accused of cheating is that Dimension Door is a spell many players accidentally cheat with. Because it has a range of 500 feet it by definition targets the space you're teleporting into, which means by definition Dimension Door can't teleport through total cover. Most people play it like it can, which is simply false - contrast with Misty Step, which can teleport through (typically transparent) total cover.

Dimension Door doesn't need line of sight, and not only explicitly outlines the ways you can specify your destination, but gives you a clause for what happens if you end up in the same space as something else. "200ft straight downward" wouldn't make sense as an example if it didn't defeat total cover.

Where are you getting that a 4th level teleportation spell can't go through a wall or other cover?