Are full casting progression and high tier characters overrated?

[ColorBlindNinja]

No. First of, it has a target, but is not exempted from the usual targetting rules (Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target). So first of, you need to scry an outsider that you want to target, so that you see him.
That step is usually totally ignored, as are others that follow.

The spell talks about taking the creature from another plane. It's obviously an exception to the targeting rules.

[Talakeal]

The spell talks about taking the creature from another plane. It's obviously an exception to the targeting rules.

Its also obvious that centuries of slavery is an unreasonable or open ended task, but here we are.

Planar binding is the Entire RAW vs RAI debate in a nutshell.

[RoboEmperor]

Its also obvious that centuries of slavery is an unreasonable or open ended task, but here we are.

Planar binding is the Entire RAW vs RAI debate in a nutshell.

There is no RAW vs RAI debate. RAW and RAI is use the spell to enslave demons and elementals, and if you suck at it that's how demons and elementals end up on the material plane.

No the only debate is "I don't like planar binding so I'm gonna rule lawyer it in a way so it doesn't work."

[Talakeal]

There is no RAW vs RAI debate. RAW and RAI is use the spell to enslave demons and elementals, and if you suck at it that's how demons and elementals end up on the material plane.

No the only debate is "I don't like planar binding so I'm gonna rule lawyer it in a way so it doesn't work."

Are you seriously arguing that the term "unreasonable demands" is not vague and open to interpretation?

[Cosi]

For example, it has a casting time of 10 minutes, but needs to be cast within one round of the time the magic circle is cast. If it is taken as written, it would be very hard to actually bind outsiders with it. So maybe that isn't dysfunctional, but intended

Are the terms defined in such a way that "you cast magic circle round one, you start casting planar binding round two" would not suffice?

Are you seriously arguing that the term "unreasonable demands" is not vague and open to interpretation?

I think his argument (based off skimming previously) is that there exist examples of people demanding extended service (e.g. hundreds or thousands of years) in published first party content, so it is therefore reasonable to assume that the designers intended for you to do things they provided examples of people doing.

Also, the "RAW v RAI" debate still fails to address the real problem -- there are things you can summon with planar binding that can themselves use planar binding. That means that either you can get infinite wishes, or the intention was that you not be able to get wishes from genies. Both of those are dumb and bad, so the spell is broken. In any case, the RAI case (really, any RAI case bar the small number where designers have spoken up) is pointless, because it can't present any alternative rule without houseruling, and houseruling has no dependency on the text to begin with.

[RoboEmperor]

Are you seriously arguing that the term "unreasonable demands" is not vague and open to interpretation?

It's vague on purpose because the spell description has to cover the personalities of every single outsider, good/evil/law/chaos/neutral in existence. It's also vague because they tried to make the spell both consensual and nonconsensual instead of only one or the other.

In any case what does this have to do with RAW vs RAI? RAI is very clear, and the RAW does not betray the RAI. People who hate the spell can capitalize on its vagueness and rule lawyer it to unusability, which is my point, but it has nothing to do with RAW vs RAI. RAW and RAI do not disagree with each other.

Thought Bottles is a RAW vs RAI debate. RAI = can't recover crafting xp, RAW says it can. I just don't think Planar Binding fits into this category.

[Anthrowhale]

One thing that I hadn't appreciated about planar binding is that you can name your target making the elemental and outsider types a devastating liability. The outsider wizard camping out on a demiplane can suddenly be pulled into a trap on an entirely different plane.

[Aharon]

The spell talks about taking the creature from another plane. It's obviously an exception to the targeting rules.

But it still works if the targeting rules are applied normally - it's just considerably harder. So if we have one reading of the spell that makes casters very powerful for basically no investment, and another one that requires lots of preparations, why is it reasonable, in your opinion, to choose the first one?

There is no RAW vs RAI debate. RAW and RAI is use the spell to enslave demons and elementals, and if you suck at it that's how demons and elementals end up on the material plane.

No the only debate is "I don't like planar binding so I'm gonna rule lawyer it in a way so it doesn't work."

I never said it doesn't work at all - it's just a lot harder. The RAW way the spell works is

1. Plane Shift to your target plane so you can get a glimpse of one of the kind of outsiders you want to bind
2. Cast Scrying/Greater Scrying on the specific outsider you saw
3. Cast Planar Binding
4. After casting Planar Binding (within one round) cast the magic circle

As others have mentioned, you should add a lot of security. However, this approach has the advantage that the DM can make things as difficult as desired - you still don't need the name of an outsider, but you can't get a random one (only one whose name you don't know). I actually think this is a lot more in the spirit of this kind of spell. You want generic cookie cutter monsters as cannon fodder? Use Summon Monster. You want a long-term servant? Put in some actual effort!

Are the terms defined in such a way that "you cast magic circle round one, you start casting planar binding round two" would not suffice?

I don't think so. For how I believe the spell works RAW, see above.

I think his argument (based off skimming previously) is that there exist examples of people demanding extended service (e.g. hundreds or thousands of years) in published first party content, so it is therefore reasonable to assume that the designers intended for you to do things they provided examples of people doing.

Also, the "RAW v RAI" debate still fails to address the real problem -- there are things you can summon with planar binding that can themselves use planar binding. That means that either you can get infinite wishes, or the intention was that you not be able to get wishes from genies. Both of those are dumb and bad, so the spell is broken. In any case, the RAI case (really, any RAI case bar the small number where designers have spoken up) is pointless, because it can't present any alternative rule without houseruling, and houseruling has no dependency on the text to begin with.

There also exist examples where planar binding went wrong (City of the Spider Queen, for example), and I don't think the first party content was actually quoted?

The "RAW v RAI" as framed above adresses this problem, since finding a specific kind of creature to bind is a lot harder, and that creature does not neccessarily have to be able to bind others.

It's vague on purpose because the spell description has to cover the personalities of every single outsider, good/evil/law/chaos/neutral in existence. It's also vague because they tried to make the spell both consensual and nonconsensual instead of only one or the other.

In any case what does this have to do with RAW vs RAI? RAI is very clear, and the RAW does not betray the RAI.

Well, I think we disagree here. Yes, WotC was aware that casters, especially at higher levels, are more powerful than mundanes. However - looking at playtest material etc. - they never intended the gap to be as large as it is. Therefore, I think it is reasonable to assume that they intended the spell to be unreliable and dangerous - they just didn't realize that if one didn't apply very rigorous RAW and assumed "obvious" stuff like the exclusion from targeting rules, this wasn't the case.
I mean, look at the usual tropes. Binding Demons isn't something even powerful casters do just for breakfast. It is usually portrayed as dangerous - so why should we assume the designers actually intended the outcome of their rules, when in so many other cases, it's clear that they didn't.

One thing that I hadn't appreciated about planar binding is that you can name your target making the elemental and outsider types a devastating liability. The outsider wizard camping out on a demiplane can suddenly be pulled into a trap on an entirely different plane.

Yep. It's cousin, Spirit binding (accessible to Wu Jen), is one of the few ways to at least try to hinder astrally projecting casters.


As an aside, the game still breaks apart once gate comes into play, since it doesn't inherit all these clauses from the planar binding line. But the game-breaking occurs a lot later, which is fine by me.

[RoboEmperor]

I never said it doesn't work at all - it's just a lot harder. The RAW way the spell works is

1. Plane Shift to your target plane so you can get a glimpse of one of the kind of outsiders you want to bind
2. Cast Scrying/Greater Scrying on the specific outsider you saw
3. Cast Planar Binding
4. After casting Planar Binding (within one round) cast the magic circle

You only need knowledge. DC 10+hd of creature to know of its existence and you can take 10 on knowledge checks when out of combat.

As for the 10minute cast time and 1 round window you have to look at 3.0 books to make sense of them. Ambrosia for example, has a cast time of 24 hours but you gotta time it at the exact moment the target feels bliss. Casting first then targeting can't possibly work, but if you look at liquid pain from BoVD, you see what the developers intended. You start casting the moment the creature feels bliss and then it takes 24 hours to turn that bliss into ambrosia. So for planar binding which is a ported 3.0 spell, you start casting it within 1 round of magic circle and then it completes after 10minutes. Just need to start casting within 1 round not finish casting.

Well, I think we disagree here. Yes, WotC was aware that casters, especially at higher levels, are more powerful than mundanes. However - looking at playtest material etc. - they never intended the gap to be as large as it is. Therefore, I think it is reasonable to assume that they intended the spell to be unreliable and dangerous - they just didn't realize that if one didn't apply very rigorous RAW and assumed "obvious" stuff like the exclusion from targeting rules, this wasn't the case.
I mean, look at the usual tropes. Binding Demons isn't something even powerful casters do just for breakfast. It is usually portrayed as dangerous - so why should we assume the designers actually intended the outcome of their rules, when in so many other cases, it's clear that they didn't.

This is several different intentions. Look at polymorph. They fully intended the wizard to be able to turn creatures into more powerful creatures. They fully did NOT intend for it to become ludicrously powerful due to additional monster manuals like the war troll. Doesn't mean the rules betray their intention that the spell is supposed to turn creatures into more powerful creatures. So you can't say "Polymorphing into a War Troll betrays RAI"

Similarly with planar binding if you're saying "The developers did not intend planar binding to be 100% safe with optimization", that's not a RAI argument at all. That's game design intent or whatever. If you're saying the developers did NOT intend wizards to cast 100 debuffs on the bound creature I believe you are correct which is why I use Surge of Fortune instead of debuffs for my planar binding. My DM at least is very happy that I didn't cheese or rule lawyer Planar Binding and instead got what I want with clear cut, no ambiguous methods.

One thing that I hadn't appreciated about planar binding is that you can name your target making the elemental and outsider types a devastating liability. The outsider wizard camping out on a demiplane can suddenly be pulled into a trap on an entirely different plane.

Yup. You can bind Demon Princes with Planar Binding but not with Gate, which is why planar binding > gate. Even into Epic thanks to cosmic descryer.

I believe Grazzt got bound and enslaved for a short while?

[ColorBlindNinja]

Yup. You can bind Demon Princes with Planar Binding but not with Gate, which is why planar binding > gate.

Gate gets you an outsider of up to 34 HD (minimum) that cannot disobey your orders. It most certainly is better than Planar Binding by virtue of that and being able to call more powerful minions.

EDIT: Not to mention the lack of a saving throw for Gate.

[RoboEmperor]

Gate gets you an outsider of up to 34 HD (minimum) that cannot disobey your orders. It most certainly is better than Planar Binding by virtue of that and being able to call more powerful minions.

One costs 1,000xp and only lasts 1round/level, the other is free.

If you're talking about pure TO you can bind an ARMY with planar binding for FREE while you can't with Gate because of its XP cost. If you use rod of excellent magic there's still the duration.

Even with Chain Gating Solars Planar Binding has Efreetis 6 levels earlier so it wins on infinite loops too.

[ColorBlindNinja]

One costs 1,000xp

Which isn't hard to mitigate.

and only lasts 1round/level,

More than long enough to cast Mind Rape.

the other is free.

It takes more time, sometimes you need a minion now.

If you're talking about pure TO you can bind an ARMY with planar binding for FREE while you can't with Gate because of its XP cost.

You can chain Gate at high end TO.

If you use rod of excellent magic there's still the duration.

Persist?

Even with Chain Gating Solars Planar Binding has Efreetis 6 levels earlier so it wins on infinite loops too.

If all we care about is infinite loops, then Lesser Planar Binding, or perhaps Lesser Planar Ally, can get you a Mirror Mephit with a Simulacrum SLA.

EDIT: Infinite loops aside, Gate is a more powerful & useful spell.

[RoboEmperor]

EDIT: Infinite loops aside, Gate is a more powerful & useful spell.

Lets see...

Absolutely No investment? Sure, gate is the 1,000xp OH **** button.

Generally? You can use planar binding all day every day but Gate is a once in a while thing. So Planar Binding wins.

Non-TO Investment? Malconvokers can bind TITANS who have 1/day GATE. So... if you want to cast gate 5 times a day bind 5 titans. Planar Binding enables free Gates so Planar Binding > Gate.

TO Investment? Dweomerkeepers give you free Gate I'll give you that, and Gate is a LOLIWIN spell since it can bring in epic creatures, but Planar Binding already has free gates so still Planar Binding Wins.

Full TO? As mentioned above Efreetis enable everything at level 11 so Planar Binding still wins.

So the only time Gate > Planar Binding is if it is used for a non-planar-binding dedicated spellcaster.
Planar Binding Dedicated Spellcaster > Gate Dedicated Spellcaster.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Absolutely No investment? Sure, gate is the 1,000xp OH **** button.

XP costs can easily be mitigated.

Generally? You can use planar binding all day every day but Gate is a once in a while thing. So Planar Binding wins.

1. You can use Gate all day, if you wish to.

2. Gate can still call stronger monsters than Planar Binding can.

Non-TO Investment? Malconvokers can bind TITANS who have 1/day GATE. So... if you want to cast gate 5 times a day bind 5 titans. Planar Binding enables free Gates so Planar Binding > Gate.

Any caster with Gate can use it once and chain gate Titans.

TO Investment? Dweomerkeepers give you free Gate I'll give you that, and Gate is a LOLIWIN spell since it can bring in epic creatures, but Planar Binding already has free gates so still Planar Binding Wins.

Planar Binding being able to access Gate doesn't say much about how useful Planar Binding is.

EDIT: Gate can get you access to Planar Binding, so, by that logic: Gate > Planar Binding.

Full TO? As mentioned above Efreetis enable everything at level 11 so Planar Binding still wins.

No, you can arguably do that with Lesser Planar Ally at level 7.

So the only time Gate > Planar Binding is if it is used for a non-planar-binding dedicated spellcaster.
Planar Binding Dedicated Spellcaster > Gate Dedicated Spellcaster.

You can use Gate to greater effect than Planar Binding with zero build investment.

EDIT: If you do build for Gate, it's always going to cost no XP.

You can cast Gate for free, it's faster, and you can get more powerful monsters.

[Aharon]

You only need knowledge. DC 10+hd of creature to know of its existence and you can take 10 on knowledge checks when out of combat.

You need to target the creature, for that, you need to see the creature, for that, you need scrying. Scrying only works if you have at least a picture/know how the creature you want to scry on looks. That's what the previous steps are for.

As for the 10minute cast time and 1 round window you have to look at 3.0 books to make sense of them. Ambrosia for example, has a cast time of 24 hours but you gotta time it at the exact moment the target feels bliss. Casting first then targeting can't possibly work, but if you look at liquid pain from BoVD, you see what the developers intended. You start casting the moment the creature feels bliss and then it takes 24 hours to turn that bliss into ambrosia. So for planar binding which is a ported 3.0 spell, you start casting it within 1 round of magic circle and then it completes after 10minutes. Just need to start casting within 1 round not finish casting.

"within 1 round" includes "one round after", so you can RAW fulfill this by first casting the planar binding, then casting the circle. Ambrosia doesn't have an explicit "within 1 round clause" (probably because states of bliss rarely only last 6 seconds).

This is several different intentions. Look at polymorph. They fully intended the wizard to be able to turn creatures into more powerful creatures. They fully did NOT intend for it to become ludicrously powerful due to additional monster manuals like the war troll. Doesn't mean the rules betray their intention that the spell is supposed to turn creatures into more powerful creatures. So you can't say "Polymorphing into a War Troll betrays RAI"

By the later nerfs to shapechanging, the introduction of the shapechanging subschool and spells, it's pretty clear that they realized they messed up with the spell and wanted it to be less powerful than it turned out.

[Kelb_Panthera]

You need to target the creature, for that, you need to see the creature, for that, you need scrying. Scrying only works if you have at least a picture/know how the creature you want to scry on looks. That's what the previous steps are for.

LoS and LoE (line of effect) are not the same thing. Scrying gives you the former but not the latter.

I'm not getting into this particular argument (again ) but this is an important rules distinction. The reverse situation, LoE and no LoS is accomplished by most X cloud type spells.

[Anthrowhale]

Yep. It's cousin, Spirit binding (accessible to Wu Jen), is one of the few ways to at least try to hinder astrally projecting casters.

Combining: Outsider, Elemental, Fey, Incorporeal Undead, and anything with the [spirit] subtype are potential binding fodder. That knocks out a substantial fraction of the transformational classes.

[Aharon]

LoS and LoE (line of effect) are not the same thing. Scrying gives you the former but not the latter.

I'm not getting into this particular argument (again ) but this is an important rules distinction. The reverse situation, LoE and no LoS is accomplished by most X cloud type spells.

Oh, I just went by the line "Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target." in the targeting section.

If you assume the even stricter neccessity for line of effect, the spell would only work if the creature had already been brought into your line of effect via other means.