Quick question regarding the infamous "efreeti wish" loophole...

[Cosi]

For me, Psyren makes some good points, but ultimately they are just that: Points in an argument about spells that are worded pretty badly and each gm has to find a means to make them work when they come up in actual play.

Can you name one of those good points? With, like, an explanation is to why "ice assassins are immune to dominate monster" is a good plan?

[Cosi]

Djinn != Genie.

Open up your Monster Manual to page 114*. You see the heading for "Genie"? Notice that within that heading are subheadings for "Djinn" and "Efreet". That distinction is meaningful, right? When you ask for an "Efreet", that is a thing you can get because it has its own subheading. Now. Read the "Djinn" section carefully. Notice that the "Noble Djinn" section is it's own heading. Exactly like the relationship "Djinn" or "Efreet" has with "Genie".

Now, what distinction do you think you are making, and why does it not break planar binding?

*: You can also read this SRD page, as it contains the relevant information and structure.

[Florian]

Can you name one of those good points? With, like, an explanation is to why "ice assassins are immune to dominate monster" is a good plan?

He calls in question the fluff parts that are explicitly named and called out. The "urges" of an Ice Assassin, the "nature" of Efreeti and stuff like that.

Those are all valid points that should be discussed rather then being glossed over with the assumption that they work in the players favor.

I do not agree with his statements, but I think they are clear enough to be a basis for discussion.

[AnachroNinja]

I can understand most people's positions here I think. There are definitely issues with some of the spells in question and how they work out in game. I do think it is worth noting that if you are asserting an interpretation that essentially adds to the text in question, the responsibility does lie with you to provide supporting evidence.

The example I would use is the efreet and their hatred of servitude. While it is unreasonable to use that as a basis for general behavior of a creature in game, when you take it to a level in which you are modifying the functions of other areas of the game, when there is no specific information as to how they interact... I think you are pretty much officially crossing into house rule territory. It's worth noting that I am not arguing whether it is a good or reasonable house rule.

[Graypairofsocks]

Sorry, Cosi, he did give voice to the fluff that comes with those spells and raised concern about what that could mean. Things are simply not as clear cut as some people make them out to be.

His interpretations lead to the spells making parts of themselves not do anything.

For example:
If you interpret the all-consuming need of Ice Assassin somehow overriding the control the caster has over it, then that obviously means the ice assassin's needs and Desires will override the casters control.

This then means the control the caster has over the Ice assassin is useless as the creature will always do what it wants to, not what it is ordered to.

[daremetoidareyo]

His interpretations lead to the spells making parts of themselves not do anything.

For example:
If you interpret the all-consuming need of Ice Assassin somehow overriding the control the caster has over it, then that obviously means the ice assassin's needs and Desires will override the casters control.

This then means the control the caster has over the Ice assassin is useless as the creature will always do what it wants to, not what it is ordered to.

Yeah. And a fighter has 5% chance of missing every attack. Ice assassin might not be as easily interacted with as one person's opinion might want. It's a broken spell anyway, so I don't ever see it in real play, I only ever read about it on forums, so I can't say much about how players do use it. But looking at psyrens argument about it and the text of those spells, that is totally a valid interpretation that can arise organically. An "all consuming need" is strongly worded for a spell.

If we're being bombastic about folks's subliminal motives, maybe your frustration is motivated by a need to access high power tools for PCs and it seems unfair for a dm to hold someone to the standard set forth in the "fluff" that you ignored to generate a game effect. Like they don't respect the hard work you slacked your way through to twist the game to facilitate a metagame result.

But we are only able to assert such things: Not guarantee that they are true by ferocity of our assertions.

[Cosi]

But looking at psyrens argument about it and the text of those spells, that is totally a valid interpretation that can arise organically. An "all consuming need" is strongly worded for a spell.

Stop being stupid. If "all consuming" mean the bull Psyren is spinning it is (immune to dominate monster, also everything else), the spell would say that. Psyren is lying through his teeth because admitting game designers can be wrong would force him to reevaluate treasured positions like "non-casters are fine" or "Pathfinder is a good system".

If we're being bombastic about folks's subliminal motives, maybe your frustration is motivated by a need to access high power tools for PCs and it seems unfair for a dm to hold someone to the standard set forth in the "fluff" that you ignored to generate a game effect.

I can't speak for Socks, but I personally have been very clear about my motives. XP free wish is broken. Broken things are bad. For the game to improve, we have to call out broken things and (ideally) think of solutions. Not tie the rest of the rules into knots to make this one thing "not broken".

[Graypairofsocks]

Those passages don't contradict. You can have detailed notes on something without them being comprehensive.

I didn't say they contradicted. They are clarifying what they meant.
It is comprehensive, but only for the books that aren't core.
More proof, here is the page where you download the update: http://archive.wizards.com/default.a.../dnd/20030718a

Here is a quote from the page:

The free D&D v.3.5 Accessory Update booklet provides you with a summary of the changes to the core rulebooks and the information you need to bring the Monster Manual II, Fiend Folio, Deities and Demigods, Epic Level Handbook, and the Manual of the Planes fully up to v.3.5 of the game.

Emphasis was added by me.
This quote does not contradict the quote you gave from Update booklet (which was kind of vague).
It does not contradict the Quote I gave from the update booklet.


One Aside note:
I forgot to mention that the passage about comprehensiveness is in all the update booklets.
That is because there was originally one big one (I think it was originally a physical one they gave out at GenCon) that was later split up into multiple little PDFs.

Assuming for a moment there wasn't a complete update in those booklets:
Unless you can point to the rules section (other than Rule 0) which with explicitly says (not implies) that the DM should make their own modifications to the Update, then we can only use the update as it is.

[Anlashok]

Easy test:

Is it reasonable to demand a plumber perform brain surgery?
Is it reasonable to demand a neurosurgeon to perform brain surgey?

You are asking the same thing of two different people. Reasonableness absolutely is dependent on the creature.

You've fallen for the easy trap here. Both of those examples you give are of capabilities, not mindset.

No. It's not reasonable to demand a plumber do brain surgery, because that's a question of the plumber's skill set.

It is, however, reasonable to ask a plumber to do plumbing (or ask the neurosurgeon to do brain surgery). If you then find out the plumber/surgeon is a huge jerk, it doesn't make the request any less reasonable. It just means you're dealing with an *******.

Referring back to your example would be more like asking the efreet to fight a great wyrm dragon, which it certainly lacks the capabilities to do and is therefore unreasonable to ask of him.

Not asking the efreet to use an SLA.

But looking at psyrens argument about it and the text of those spells, that is totally a valid interpretation that can arise organically. An "all consuming need" is strongly worded for a spell.

All consuming need is pretty strongly worded, yes and pretty clearly defines the ice assassin's natural behavior.

But "The ice assassin is under your absolute command" is strongly worded too.

It seems weird to simultaneously declare one of them too important to ignore and the other not worth considering at all. Especially when the latter seems a lot more explicit in what it means.

[Cosi]

Unless you can point to the rules section (other than Rule 0) which with explicitly says (not implies) that the DM should make their own modifications to the Update, then we can only use the update as it is.

Also, I would say that even if there is a rule generically empowering the DM to make "changes", any specific changes would still count as homebrew (or at least houserules). I mean, the PrCs in the DMG are supposed to be "examples", stating the DM is free to make up his own, but that doesn't make PrCs the DM invents RAW.

[Deophaun]

You've fallen for the easy trap here. Both of those examples you give are of capabilities, not mindset.

There's no trap. The question was if reasonablness was dependent on the creature. I have demonstrated so.

It is, however, reasonable to ask a plumber to do plumbing (or ask the neurosurgeon to do brain surgery).

Ah, but is it also reasonable to ask a plumber to negotiate with terrorists? That's the problem: you assume the request is limited solely to the words uttered, while the context of the words come with further implications.

The problem with the reasonable man standard is that reasonable men disagree as to what is and is not reasonable all the time, for exactly this reason. It's a terrible standard, especially in law.

[Florian]

All consuming need is pretty strongly worded, yes and pretty clearly defines the ice assassin's natural behavior.

But "The ice assassin is under your absolute command" is strongly worded too.

It seems weird to simultaneously declare one of them too important to ignore and the other not worth considering at all. Especially when the latter seems a lot more explicit in what it means.

I fail to see the conflict here.

- We know that the original creature has a clearly defined personality (Important!)
- We know that the Ice Assassin has a changed personality (the All Consuming Need to Kill)
- We know that you have command, not control (!), over the Ice Assassin.

The later part is doubly important because in most cases the target of an Ice Assassin will be our enemy and the Ice Assassin is not automatically considered to be on friendly terms with its creator. It does not, for example, forget previous knowledge or change alignment. Beyond that, it´s an independent creature. That is noteworthy because that defines how the Ice Assassin will go about doing its intended job, killing the original. If you, say, copy a Red Wizard of Thay, it will go about it according to its nature, potentially meaning a heap of collateral damage that you might want to avoid.

But no matter what the base personality was, the Ice Assassin is a pure monomaniac with only one reson d´etre: Kill the original and then melt away.

That is important as that is the new core defining quality of the Ice Assassins personality. Any clause in any spell that works based on a creatures interests has to take this into account. Preventing the Ice Assassin from going after the original is akin to a suicidal command as that goes directly against the very reason for existing of it.

[Beheld]

- We know that you have command, not control (!), over the Ice Assassin.

Why are you such a liar? It absolutely obeys your commands. That is control. If you have to tell pathetic lies to make your point, your point is wrong.

[Florian]

Why are you such a liar? It absolutely obeys your commands. That is control. If you have to tell pathetic lies to make your point, your point is wrong.

Mind your manners. Going ad hominem because of trivialities is simply rotten behavior.

If you do not understand the difference between having command over something and having control over something, you should shut your trap and do your research. Else I can only think that you want to force your point to be true and that´s it.

[atemu1234]

Spoiler: Responses

Show

People often treat RAW as some holy inviolable thing. Certainly RAW is useful because some common gound is needed for meaningful rules discussion. However, RAW is frankly bogus in many respects, and for actual games needs to be updated with an appropriate set of houserules. For example, healing through drowning is technically RAW, but obviously not RAI.

The best way to prevent free wishes and wish loops is with a simple houserule: All (Sp) and (Su) abilities require XP costs. In spite of RAW saying they don't require XP, it seems RAI that they're supposed to. Consider the Archmage PrC, which says (Sp) abilities still cost XP (but unfortunately the authors didn't think to update the general text for such abilities). This means you can Shapechange into a Zodar and get free access to Wish, but can't wish for anything unless you have 5000 XP, which is nice in higher level games but not gamebreaking.

This means you can wish to create any magic item you want, but only if you have 5000 + the appropriate crafting cost in XP to spare. Similarly, you can bind an Efreeti, but it can't cast Wish for you unless it has at least 5000 XP to spare. That's a good fluff reason for why armies of Efreeti haven't taken over the multiverse yet (by granting wishes to human slaves) with infinite wishes for +100000000 weapons and bracers of AC +100000000, because such items don't exist since nobody has the XP to craft or wish for them.

It's a good thing this is supposed to be an impartial rules discussion, then. We all have different standards of what is reasonable in a game and what is not, and we can discuss for an infinite amount of time without agreeing, because our gaming cultures and opinions are different.

As to the houserule, it doesn't usually work that well at limiting anything, because (at least in my experience) people don't track the XP of monsters and NPCs that are not going to be run by players. You can make that work however you want, but the only reason that was added for Archmage was because it was supposed to be used by players.

As to an army of Efreeti, there really isn't a RAW reason why. Maybe they don't trust anyone enough to have them do that. Maybe they are content to rule over their home territory without the need to conquer other planes of existence.

@Beheld:

I do not claim anything, but I also do not count on anything being a 100% sure unless odds really run in your favor.

The point being here, whishes granted by Efreeti or Glabrezu are wishes granted by evil outsiders with their own will and goals. You do not simply dominate them in any way and get your desires covered, that´s not how it works.

So, like mentioned before, I actually am curious why you think that your wish is granted in a way that fits you without any drawback. To that, I did not get any meaningful answer so far.

Wish for a Candle of Invocation, wish for (insert two other things here), kill the Efreet before it leaves? It's CR 8, and you can use these wishing loops to make it so that you are incredibly powerful. I'm fairly certain Protection from Evil alone puts a kibosh on a bunch of things they could try. Mind Blank is another thing.

Not really here to argue this point, however, and I probably missed a few things.

WTF? How is "X really good magic item" not "a magic item"? Is a Ferrari not a car because it's a really good car?

How hard is it to just say "it's broken, it's not allowed"? Why is it so damn important to screw over players by having the gods mess with them, or jacking up their enemies, or making arguments about double secret RAW?

Because, ironically, the people who think that there must be a RAW reason that they can do this are the ones idolizing RAW the most; as opposed to those who accept this exists as a thing in RAW, and simply ask (politely) that their players don't break their game.

Perhaps there is no end point to this conversation.

Apparently Beheld is simply arguing RAW, not what should happen in real games.

And the RAW are dumb on multiple levels. It's very buggy code. The game crashes when you push on it. Especially against a dummy DM.

And wish is terrible RAW. No gp limit on magic items? WHY DID YOU DO THAT, WOTC? Open permission for the DM to interpret a wish in such a way to hurt the players? No limitation, even bad buggy limitation on wishing for more wishes? WOTC DGAF.

This entire conversation has no discernable endpoint because... schroedinger's circumstances.

Yeah, there is not a real solution to this argument. Whatever argument is made will have flaws, because there is no perfect solution, as RAW is (incredibly) flawed. I like the buggy code analogy, by the way.

Sweet fancy Moses. I went away after I saw some biting responses to my OP, thinking, "I guess I was a dummy to question this. No worry. In a couple of days, nobody on GITP would even bother about this subject. It's literally years-old and argued to death."

I was so very wrong, and I am truly, sincerely sorry I even brought this subject up. Hindsight being what it is, I should have just looked on other forums harder to see the discord this subject causes in every community it appears. I didn't mean to cause any of this. I just wanted another DM to tell me how to handle this problem in a concise way that didn't rely on dubious player "good intentions" to settle (i.e. hoping your players will be reasonable, which is definitely not something that always happens).

Clearly I should have just kept my concerns to myself, ruled that wish can't be used as an SLA (replaced with heightened +2 limited wish SLA), and gone my merry way.

I feel like a damn jerk about this now...

Don't worry, this is just what we do around here. This is how we spend our free time, pedantically arguing with each other over a flawed system.

No one judges you for not knowing everything, nor for misjudging your audiences.

Just one extra point of contention; please do not misconstrue the Adaptation clause for 3.5 to mean you can change just anything about the monster. It simply has to function. I can drive a run-down car, and it's technically functional, but changing the type of abilities is an overreach. Moreover, the typing of abilities did not change in 3.5.

[Psyren]

Open up your Monster Manual to page 114*. You see the heading for "Genie"? Notice that within that heading are subheadings for "Djinn" and "Efreet". That distinction is meaningful, right? When you ask for an "Efreet", that is a thing you can get because it has its own subheading. Now. Read the "Djinn" section carefully. Notice that the "Noble Djinn" section is it's own heading. Exactly like the relationship "Djinn" or "Efreet" has with "Genie".

Now, what distinction do you think you are making, and why does it not break planar binding?

*: You can also read this SRD page, as it contains the relevant information and structure.

"Genie" is not a creature - it's a category under which multiple creatures are grouped, like "Dinosaur" (MM 60) or "Mephit" (MM 180). Within that category are the individual creature entries that fall under it. "Djinn" is a type of genie that is a unique creature entry (as is "Efreet"), and "noble djinn" is a subset of that. Just as there is no creature called simply "Dinosaur," there is none called simply "Genie" either. If you tell your GM "I summon a dinosaur," the game has to stop while he asks you "which one?" and the same is true for "I planar bind a Genie."

I can understand most people's positions here I think. There are definitely issues with some of the spells in question and how they work out in game. I do think it is worth noting that if you are asserting an interpretation that essentially adds to the text in question, the responsibility does lie with you to provide supporting evidence.

The example I would use is the efreet and their hatred of servitude. While it is unreasonable to use that as a basis for general behavior of a creature in game, when you take it to a level in which you are modifying the functions of other areas of the game, when there is no specific information as to how they interact... I think you are pretty much officially crossing into house rule territory. It's worth noting that I am not arguing whether it is a good or reasonable house rule.

I agree with you that text shouldn't be added. But it doesn't need to be, because "unreasonable" is not defined in the RAW, so it is up to the GM to decide what that means or doesn't mean.

Stop being stupid. If "all consuming" mean the bull Psyren is spinning it is (immune to dominate monster, also everything else), the spell would say that. Psyren is lying through his teeth because admitting game designers can be wrong would force him to reevaluate treasured positions like "non-casters are fine" or "Pathfinder is a good system".

Wait, designers can be wrong? Up is down! Black is white! My life has no meaning!

[Cosi]

"Genie" is not a creature - it's a category under which multiple creatures are grouped, like "Dinosaur" (MM 60) or "Mephit" (MM 180). Within that category are the individual creature entries that fall under it. "Djinn" is a type of genie that is a unique creature entry (as is "Efreet"), and "noble djinn" is a subset of that. Just as there is no creature called simply "Dinosaur," there is none called simply "Genie" either. If you tell your GM "I summon a dinosaur," the game has to stop while he asks you "which one?" and the same is true for "I planar bind a Genie."

So you can specify "Djinn" as a subset of "Genie", but you can't specify "Noble Djinn" as a subset of "Djinn". Because that makes total sense.

[Segev]

It's not that you cannot get an efreet to do what you want through planar inding. It's that you have to work to get an efreet that will do what you want through planar binding. Heck, when I did this with a glabrezzu, I interrogated a quazzit and a succubus first to find the name of one that wouldn't be missed to avoid many of the potential issues mentioned here. Then I called him, killed him, turned him into a Corpse Creature, and Commanded him. Dread Necros got wish, baby!

But if you just planar bind blindly, you should have no expectation that you will get what you want.

See, the difference between what you said here and the position I am arguing against (which I believe is what Psyren is advocating) is that you can get the Glabrezzu to do what you want, by hook or crook or threat of force. Somehow. It takes work, takes bargaining, but it can be done. Psyren's position seems to be that Efreet are entirely unable to be planar bound. Not that they require negotiation, wit, and cajoling, but that it cannot work, no, not even then.

Easy test:

Is it reasonable to demand a plumber perform brain surgery?
Is it reasonable to demand a neurosurgeon to perform brain surgey?

You are asking the same thing of two different people. Reasonableness absolutely is dependent on the creature.

Is it reasonable to ask a plumber who hates his job to fix your toilet? Is it reasonable to ask a brain surgeon who loathes you to perform brain surgery on a child for whom you wish well?

Sure, in both cases, the expert in question may resent you for even asking, but it's not an unreasonable request.

The wish-granting Efreet is not a plumber you're asking to perform brain surgery. He's a plumber who hates plumbing you're asking to fix your toilet.

I get where you're coming from with that assessment, but I don't see it that way. I apply this ruling to Efreet in particular because I believe the designers included such singular language in the Efreet entry for that very purpose. They could have easily wrote instead that "Efreet respect strength and will gladly co-operate with anyone strong enough to subjugate them" or text along those lines, or even just left their attitudes blank beyond their alignment and hatred of Djinn; they did not.

They could have, but they don't need to to have them behave as I'm suggesting. "Gladly" doesn't enter into it. "Respect[ing] strength" doesn't enter into it. They're not pathologically suicidal, and the fact that they hate the job or the boss doesn't make the request by the boss to do the job "unreasonable." It makes it detestable. It makes them fight it, and wail against it, and gnash their teeth, and plot revenge, sure.

But even if you're hiring a neurosurgeon who hates you, personally, and is so sick of neurosurgery that he hoped to retire and never do it again, that doesn't make the request to perform life-saving brain surgery on your innocent nephew an unreasonable request, in and of itself. The neurosurgeon may want a lot more from you than from anybody else. He may try to talk you into hiring somebody else. He may hate you and want to punish you later for it (perhaps by calling the cops, depending on how you attempt to coerce him). He may fight harder than "normal" to avoid doing it. But it doesn't make the request unreasonable to the point that it's impossible for any (similarly reasonable) offer or any threat to convince him to do it. (One might question the wisdom of putting your beloved nephew's life in the hands of one who wants to spite you, but one might similarly question the wisdom of asking a literal genie - in every sense - who hates you to use reality-warping powers on your behalf.)

As for other wish-granting monsters, they generally contain similar caveats. You quoted Deophaun, who brought up Glabrezu - they include helpful lines like "Like succubi, glabrezu tempt victims into ruin, but they lure their prey with power or wealth rather than passion" and "The demon can use this ability to offer a mortal whatever he or she desires—but unless the wish is used to create pain and suffering in the world, the glabrezu demands either terrible evil acts or great sacrifice as compensation." It's therefore quite easy to imagine that a wish that does none of these things - such as one for a general-purpose magic item with no caveats or restrictions on its use - would be viewed as unreasonable.

Now we've narrowed it, though, from "any wish at all" to "a wish of a particular kind." Moreover, the suggestion there is more that they'll seek to twist the wish to arrange these things.




Heck, once again: if you're bargaining and literally just making an offer - one wish without any shenanigans in return for two wishes of your choice that don't screw me over - it isn't even "servitude." It's a transaction. The blacksmith you pay to build you that suit of plate mail you're going to enchant for the Fighter isn't being placed in "servitude;" he's a businessman with whom you're contracting. Same argument can be made here; the means of calling up an efreet to place an order is just a bit more...demanding.

[Florian]

So you can specify "Djinn" as a subset of "Genie", but you can't specify "Noble Djinn" as a subset of "Djinn". Because that makes total sense.

Agreed. That is just a strange way to handle things just because the advanced version of the creature has not been fully fleshed out.

@atemu1234:

You missed the point that there´s an in-game/out-game divide and "technical" terms do not automatically translate over that divide.

[Beheld]

Mind your manners. Going ad hominem because of trivialities is simply rotten behavior.

If you do not understand the difference between having command over something and having control over something, you should shut your trap and do your research. Else I can only think that you want to force your point to be true and that´s it.

You clearly don't know what ad hominem even is. You lied. That's true. Pointing it out isn't an ad hominem. If I said, "you are a liar, therefore everything you ever said is wrong and you are wrong about this even if you were telling the truth" that would be an ad hominem.

But merely pointing out that you are wrong, and the reason you are wrong (because you lied about the text of Ice Assassin and are still lying about it right now) is not an ad hominem.

The Ice Assassin spell does not say "you have command" it says "[The Ice Assassin] absolutely obeys [the caster's] commands." If someone absolutely obeys your commands, and you give a ****, you can just command it to be under your control, if that were in any way something different, than absolutely obeying your commands.

Absolutely obeying your commands is you having control. You have control over the Ice Assassin, and the fact that you keep lying about what Ice Assassin says by claiming it says something slightly different is pointless and wrong.

[daremetoidareyo]

"The ice assassin possesses all the skills, abilities, and memories possessed by the original, but its personality is warped and twisted by an all-consuming need to slay the original."

vs

"The ice assassin is under your absolute command."

Those two descriptions are at odds with each other if the ice assassin is of yourself. Those stipulations, if taken equally seriously lead to buggy code.

Your absolute command better include "don't kill me" and "don't facilitate circumstances by which I die" which would offer a degree of protection. At that point, an Ice assassin, who knows of their own nature, may decide to break all of your stuff. As an ice assassin, you have an all consuming need to slay the person with whom you share a likeness, and if completely and totally barred from doing that, you will totally take the next best option, depriving you of power. "My intent is not to facilitate circumstances under which you die, you did not specify that I could not egregiously hinder your goals. As my only true purpose for existing is ending your existence, and if I cannot accomplish those goals, I have an all consuming need to get as close to them as I am allowed."

So you add into the mix that the ice assassin can't break your stuff on purpose.

Then the ice assassin kills itself. If you resurrect it and ask why, "If I cannot kill you, I will not add to your ability to survive."

So you add "don't kill yourself." to the mix of absolute commands. So then it maims itself. "If I cannot kill you, I will not add to your ability to survive, and if I cannot kill myself, I can render myself unable to to add to your ability to survive."

So you add don't maim yourself. And the ice assassin then facilitates situations where someone else maims him.

It's an all consuming need to slay, removing the ability to slay, doesn't remove the "all-consumption" of the being in its blocked efforts. It isn't disingenuous to read this spell in this manner.


If, through this process, you stumble across the perfect combination of abilities to have an ice assassin who follows your orders despite the all consuming need to slay you, congratulations, you should get a job writing contracts. You can have it. You earned it.

But simply insisting that one part of the rules is softer than another because you thought of a single shallow work-around doesn't mean when others point out that their interpretation brings them to a different conclusion that it makes them a liar. They just have a different opinion on the same facts. So one could have this one opinion, and happen to disagree with you on another opinion about how to weight fluff vs. mechanics and decide that efreet are terrible wishgranters because their explicit fluff is terrible. That same person could abide that noble djinn are not reachable by spammed planar bindings but are totally accessible through truenames. And that person is totally internally consistent. Just as consistent as the folks who happen to disagree.

They aren't punishing PCs for using their tools, their PCs aren't being mindful enough of all of the interpretation that they are leaving in the hands of others. They aren't twisting the game, not by a longshot, and certainly not more than the wizard who expects that his ice assassin clone be totally compliant because that's what the webforums guaranteed would happen. Further, I contend that what is broken by these things is all equivalently repairable, either by relying on RAW or houserule. And if that is how a person prefers to play, all the fury in the world isn't going to convince them otherwise.

[Cosi]

It should be noted that you can make one ice assassin of yourself, then spend your remaining castings to make ice assassins of that, which have no compulsion to kill you. Also that the ice assassin in question in this thread is of an Efreet rather than yourself.

If, through this process, you stumble across the perfect combination of abilities to have an ice assassin who follows your orders despite the all consuming need to slay you, congratulations, you should get a job writing contracts. You can have it. You earned it.

This is stupid. Being a better lawyer than your DM should not give you real, in character power. Just like being a better gymnast, or a better cook, or a better programmer shouldn't. It wouldn't balance planar binding if you had to do more push-ups than your DM before you cast it, it would just make the spell stupid.

[Psyren]

So you can specify "Djinn" as a subset of "Genie", but you can't specify "Noble Djinn" as a subset of "Djinn". Because that makes total sense.

Only one of the things you put in quotes above has a monster entry. I'm... not sure how to make it any clearer than that.

See, the difference between what you said here and the position I am arguing against (which I believe is what Psyren is advocating) is that you can get the Glabrezzu to do what you want, by hook or crook or threat of force. Somehow. It takes work, takes bargaining, but it can be done. Psyren's position seems to be that Efreet are entirely unable to be planar bound. Not that they require negotiation, wit, and cajoling, but that it cannot work, no, not even then.

No, this isn't a correct summation of my position at all. You can bind efreet, and even ask them for wishes. And they can even grant your request. What I'm objecting to is the notion that you can do all this with absolutely zero chance of negative consequences for you or anything you care about after you've committed such an affront, whether at that moment, or into perpetuity. By my reading of their outlook, expecting (or requiring) things to go perfectly swimmingly in this way is unreasonable.

What you should instead do is make your wish with the full knowledge/expectation that the creature or one of their associates (or superiors!) is going to try to get back at you in some way, and prepare for that eventuality like a true villain would. And of course, thoroughly examine the results of the wish you just made.

Heck, once again: if you're bargaining and literally just making an offer - one wish without any shenanigans in return for two wishes of your choice that don't screw me over - it isn't even "servitude." It's a transaction. The blacksmith you pay to build you that suit of plate mail you're going to enchant for the Fighter isn't being placed in "servitude;" he's a businessman with whom you're contracting. Same argument can be made here; the means of calling up an efreet to place an order is just a bit more...demanding.

This is a horrible analogy. How many blacksmiths do you yank across the planes into a specially made trap that keeps them from leaving before even making your request? How many blacksmiths have a racial hatred of servitude and a racial desire to mislead mortals? And smithing is a blacksmith's profession - it's right in the name, it's something they presumably want to do. Efreet grant wishes, not out of altruism or even for commercial desires, but because it gives them a surefire avenue of screwing around with hapless mortals.

If you really want to bargain with an Efreet as a purely business transaction, nut up and head to the Plane of Fire to find one, and make your case. Layer on whatever protections you want. Yanking them away from whatever they were doing into a trap is hardly going to make them disposed towards you, regardless of whatever embellishments you so graciously append to your temerity.

[Cosi]

Only one of the things you put in quotes above has a monster entry. I'm... not sure how to make it any clearer than that.

Actually, they both have monster entries. Noble Djinn just doesn't have a statistics block. Or can you not use dragon ally to summon a Wyrmling Black Dragon because it doesn't have a statistics block?

Go actually read the cited section of the Monster Manual. Pay attention to the structure of the entry. Notice that "Noble Djinn" is a subheading within "Djinn" in the exact same way that "Djinn" is a subheading within "Genie". You are making a distinction without a difference.

If you really want to bargain with an Efreet as a purely business transaction, nut up and head to the Plane of Fire to find one, and make your case. Layer on whatever protections you want. Yanking them away from whatever they were doing into a trap is hardly going to make them disposed towards you, regardless of whatever embellishments you so graciously append to your temerity.

And this doesn't apply to other creatures because? And given that it does (because it super obviously does), how is planar binding supposed to do anything at all?

Oh, right, you didn't think that far ahead.

[Psyren]

Actually, they both have monster entries. Noble Djinn just doesn't have a statistics block. Or can you not use dragon ally to summon a Wyrmling Black Dragon because it doesn't have a statistics block?

Go actually read the cited section of the Monster Manual. Pay attention to the structure of the entry. Notice that "Noble Djinn" is a subheading within "Djinn" in the exact same way that "Djinn" is a subheading within "Genie". You are making a distinction without a difference.

So is the Troll Hunter not a Troll? A totally separate creature then?

And even putting the "heading" argument aside, the text specifically states that noble djinn are part of the djinn population. They are djinn.

And this doesn't apply to other creatures because?

Because Efreet have a hatred of servitude (MM 115).

[daremetoidareyo]

This is stupid. Being a better lawyer than your DM should not give you real, in character power. Just like being a better gymnast, or a better cook, or a better programmer shouldn't. It wouldn't balance planar binding if you had to do more push-ups than your DM before you cast it, it would just make the spell stupid.

I disagree. If you want to subvert RAW, subvert it entirely. Don't get lazy by being angry it didn't work out as intended. Especially when you are talking about class features with the strongest abilities in the game. I'm sure those wizard tears will dry. It's obvious that ice assassin abuse is a power grab that is facilitated by selectively ignoring the text. It doesn't matter if the PCs power is limited. Those limitations are directly proportional to how much fun you can have in a cooperative game of make believe. The implication that limiting ice assassin, or planar binding the most evil and vindictive creatures in the game somehow really hurts those poor wizards is laughable. They were literally warned by the text that they are relying on for additional power. Text that happens to be open to interpretation.

You may think it is stupid to rule that way, fine. That's your opinion. The rules are stupid to you, when they limit your power or deny it the full functionality promised by people who happen to ignore the same stuff. Denying the ramifications of ignoring certain parts of the text in favor of others is something you should do lightly. Don't play with things designed by RAW to specifically kill yourself, and you may find that you have an easier go at it. If you figure out an ironclad way to defeat those efreet or glabrezu, or subjugate a being designed to kill you, no matter what, then yeah, you can have the power. Congratulations. No-one. No-one is obligated to make it easy or convenient for you.

[Cosi]

So is the Troll Hunter not a Troll? A totally separate creature then?

Let's ask a simpler question. Suppose I wanted to talk to a specific person on this forum. Say, you. Is it in fact impossible for me to consistently get you rather than "random member of this forum" because you are an element of the set "members of this forum"? If the answer to that is yes, why is it possible to get a member of this forum rather than a random person?

And even putting the "heading" argument aside, the text specifically states that noble djinn are part of the djinn population. They are djinn.

And Efreet aren't part of the Genie population because...

Because Efreet have a hatred of servitude (MM 115).

Please, tell me when you have found anyone at all who believes that trade is a form of servitude. Literally any person who has ever said that at all. I'll wait.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Thread locked for review.