High-Level Play: Nightmare for DMs?

[MerakSpielman]

No, I read it as if the caster of the spell deliberately calls a specific, individual creature, it qualifies as unique. They are attempting to get a particular entity out of the infinite number of creatures in the multiverse.

 

[Spatula]

Sorry, Abominations are not Extraplanar creatures, they are Outsiders only - which are forbidden by the Gate spell. Only Extraplanar creatures may be called. (Note that the Solar for example is a Large Outsider (Angel, Extraplanar, Good) creature.)

The extraplanar subtype didn't exist when the ELH was written.

Also, a Gated creature can't be forced to cast Wish. See page 173 of the PHB - summoned creatures can't be forced to spend XP, and it's a simple to see that Called creatures under control of the caller should also fall under this rule.

Spell-like abilities don't have any material or XP costs.

 

[MarauderX]

What used to happen in the old diaglo days with the OD&D masters set? I never tossed spells out of the game for being too powerful, I just read up on it, figured out how to use it in combination with others and made up adventures anticipating the wizard would use one or two of them per encounter.

Did I get ambushed by a player combo I hadn't thought of? You know it, but we never spent game time sifting through MMs, spell lists, and other sources to get a clue. Player had something on her sheet, used it, and the DM ruled the legality of it. If it didn't jive (spells stacking with one another, whatever) the DM told her up front so she could do another action instead.

Are 8th level spells only sub-uber 9th spells? Which of those gets banned?

And what about new 9th level spells?

Have we forgotten that the DM rules the encounter? Magic works the way HE wants - gate suddenly doesn't work for the day, as the planes are misaligned, timestop doesn't last as long as it used to while in the Plane of Air, whatever.

Add in time limits for being able to cast spells, such as once a year. Or give them an insane component list. The cleric ages a year for each miracle performed. Or whatever you want to slow them down if they are casting gate five times a day and it annoys you as a DM.

I have a hard time banning things that PCs should have as tools to use in a game. They can rely on them as much as they want, and as soon as it's a crutch it might be time to slow it down.

What I got from this discussion is to take the time to decide things up front. I will learn the capabilities of the spells on a PCs sheet and the ramifications of each in my game.

 

[Saeviomagy]

No, I read it as if the caster of the spell deliberately calls a specific, individual creature, it qualifies as unique. They are attempting to get a particular entity out of the infinite number of creatures in the multiverse.

So you can name him, but if only one person carries the name, you can't summon him? Is that it? Your definition is not making logical sense when read in conjunction with the text of the spell.

The text of the spell makes it quite clear that a known individual and a unique being are seperate and discrete cases, and while a given individual MAY be a unique being, this is certainly not the case for every individual.

Now - make a real case.

 

[ruleslawyer]

No, I read it as if the caster of the spell deliberately calls a specific, individual creature, it qualifies as unique. They are attempting to get a particular entity out of the infinite number of creatures in the multiverse.

A "particular being," perhaps?

By naming a particular being or kind of being as you cast the spell, you cause the gate to open in the immediate vicinity of the desired creature and pull the subject through, willing or unwilling.

 

[Mephistopheles]

The particular versus unique portion of gate is quite straightforward as I read it. There are two separate clauses that some readers are mashing together to create some confusion that isn't there in a literal interpretation.

Clause 1:
The gate spell states: "By naming a particular being or kind of being as you cast the spell, you cause the gate to open in the immediate vicinity of the desired creature and pull the subject through, willing or unwilling."

The case for "kind of being" isn't being disputed so there's no need to cover that.

So for the "particular being" case, let's look at a definition of the word "particular". From dictionary.com there is "A separate case or an individual thing or instance, especially one that can be distinguished from a larger category or class."

If I call "A student wizard from the Unseen University, Ankh-Morpork, Discworld" then I'm calling a kind of being, which is subject to this clause and so will be pulled through willing or unwilling.

If I call "Rincewind the student wizard from the Unseen University, Ankh-Morpork, Discworld" then I am calling a particular being, one individual who can be distinguished from a larger category or class, that category or class in this case being student wizards from Unseen University. Rincewind is also subject to this clause of the spell and so will be pulled through willing or unwilling.

Clause 2:
The gate spell states: "Deities and unique beings are under no compulsion to come through the gate, although they may choose to do so of their own accord."

Deities are a straightforward case that is not being disputed so there's no need to cover that.

For the "unique beings" case let's look at a definition of the word "unique". From dictionary.com there is "Being the only one of its kind".

If I call "Nerull, The Reaper, God of Death" I am calling a deity. He is subject to this clause and can choose to come through the gate or not.

If I call "the Tarrasque" I am calling a unique being. Despite the Tarrasque having the Magical Beast type (and not some unique Tarrasque type) the description states that there is only one Tarrasque. It is subject to this clause and can choose to come through the gate or not (leaving aside the issues of its size relative to the size of the gate and its extremely low intelligence).

As a corollary, the clause in the gate spell which states "Deities and unique beings cannot be controlled in any event." is only applicable to creatures for which clause 2 applies.

Having said all of that, there is still some room for confusion when it comes to classifying some beings as unique, in my opinion.

If we look at the Demon Princes, for example, they are unarguably far more powerful than any other demons but they are themselves still demons. Is the divide between Graz'zt and a miserable Dretch any different from the divide between Mordenkainen and a turnip farmer? If Mordenkainen, as a particular human, can be called via the gate spell, willing or unwilling, can Graz'zt, as a particular demon, be similarly called? If Graz'zt can be called, then an 18th level caster would satisfy the requirements to call and control Graz'zt (who has 36HD as he is listed in the Book of Vile Darkness).

As I have been talking about a literal interpretation of the gate spell I would have to say that, as written, the spell can be used by an 18th level caster to call and control Graz'zt. (If I have missed something which would classify Demon Princes as deities or as unique beings please point it out.) I'm sure that Graz'zt would not appreciate this and would go out of his way to make my life miserable after he had finished serving me, assuming he survived, but it remains that it can be done and a player who is reading the spell literally could make a good case for it being possible.

Now, sure a DM could make the judgement call that Graz'zt, as a Demon Prince, is not just another demon and is a unique being or maybe even a deity for the purposes of the gate spell. That's fine, but that is a DM call and not the rules as written. Similar situations would apply for other powerful creatures that can be summoned with this spell, Demon Princes are an example of a borderline classification case.

In summary, then, the specifications of kinds of beings, particular beings, deities, and unique beings are all very clear. Unless there are some unusual circumstances, the average PC is not a unique being, they are a particular being. The question becomes classifying certain creatures as particular beings of their kind or unique beings. Whether or not these issues make the gate spell broken I won't say, but it certainly seems like it's capable of some extraordinarily powerful callings if the letter of the rules is adhered to.

 

[thorimar]

Restraint

I was a first-time DM when 3rd edition came out, running a mid-level, high power 2nd edition AD&D game. Converted I would have probably been using a 50 point buy system for my players. One of my players, the best role-player and DM friendly member of the group (other than myself) had been playing a Psionicist/Mage in the old campaign and was just starting to get some serious power going. I worked with him to convert Psionics from 2nd ed to 3E and preserved his abilities and power. I created a demi-god and by the time the campaign ended around 16th level, he was the most powerful, borken-by-DM-design character you would ever NOT want to see in a game. But the player knew how much power he had and used restraint in not destroying my gaming sessions with personal displays of power. He used full force when needed, but held back during "normal" conditions. If you and your DM are friends and have played for years perhaps he will trust you to use restraint in applying the full force of your wizardly might.

Thorimar

 

[rushlight]

Mephistopheles, I see your logic, but here's where I found the difference. Here's the entry for "Calling Creatures":

Calling Creatures: The second effect of the gate spell is to call an extraplanar creature to your aid (a calling effect). By naming a particular being or kind of being as you cast the spell, you cause the gate to open in the immediate vicinity of the desired creature and pull the subject through, willing or unwilling. Deities and unique beings are under no compulsion to come through the gate, although they may choose to do so of their own accord. This use of the spell creates a gate that remains open just long enough to transport the called creatures. This use of the spell has an XP cost (see below).

If you choose to call a kind of creature instead of a known individual you may call either a single creature (of any HD) or several creatures. You can call and control several creatures as long as their HD total does not exceed your caster level. In the case of a single creature, you can control it if its HD do not exceed twice your caster level. A single creature with more HD than twice your caster level can’t be controlled. Deities and unique beings cannot be controlled in any event. An uncontrolled being acts as it pleases, making the calling of such creatures rather dangerous. An uncontrolled being may return to its home plane at any time.

It seems to me that the first paragraph is defining the "Calling" ability in overview. With the spell you can A) call a "particular being" or B) call a "kind of being". They come either willing or unwilling. It also notes the length of the spell and that it takes XP.

The second paragraph seems to define the conditions used when calling type A or B. The first line says "If you choose to call a kind of creature instead of a known individual..." That means if you've chosen type B. In the PHB it goes on to state "...for instance, a bearded devil or a ghaele eladrin - you may call either a single creature (of any HD) or several creatures." Then it goes on to state the HD limits of the spell.

It never says "If you choose to call a known individual..." and list an HD requirement or if they are controlled or uncontrolled. After the text on HD limits, it does restate, "Deities and unique beings cannot be controlled in any event..." That indicates that if you didn't choose "a kind of creature" then the HD (and control) limits don't apply - because it's a "unique" creature. If the limits applied to BOTH a "kind of creature" and a "particular being" then why does that paragraph start with "If you choose..." and use "instead" to differentiate the two seperate types? Why not just say, "When you call a creature you may call either a single creature (of any HD) or several creatures..."?

It's logical to see that being able to call and control a specific person would unbalance this spell. It also seems clear to me that the designers took steps to prevent that - that's why there's a division between "kind of creature" and "particular being". If the rules for both are identical, why bother with a distinction?

And how many "unique" beings (ala the Tarrasque) are there anyway? Why bother with a clause that applies to only a single creature?

The text of the spell makes it quite clear that a known individual and a unique being are seperate and discrete cases, and while a given individual MAY be a unique being, this is certainly not the case for every individual.

A specific individual IS unique. Are you claiming that there is an entire race of people who are indentical in exactly every way to you? Are you not unique being? Isn't there only one Saeviomagy who lives where you live, posts on ENworld, drives your car and eats at your breakfast table?

You are a "particular being". And as a "particular being" you are "unique". There isn't another "particular being" exactly like you.

At least, that's how I see it.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Then congratulations, rushlight! You have just made the wording of the gate spell completely self-contradictory in an attempt to show how balanced and easily usable it is.

 

[Mephistopheles]

I can see your argument more clearly after that post, but I think there are some complications that may make the position untenable.

The second paragraph seems to define the conditions used when calling type A or B. The first line says "If you choose to call a kind of creature instead of a known individual..." That means if you've chosen type B. In the PHB it goes on to state "...for instance, a bearded devil or a ghaele eladrin - you may call either a single creature (of any HD) or several creatures." Then it goes on to state the HD limits of the spell.

You're reading things into this clause that aren't stated. When the spell says "If you choose to call a kind of creature instead of a known individual you may call either a single creature (of any HD) or several creatures." it says this because if you are calling a particular being then it is implied that you are calling a single creature. If I could specify a particular being and get multiples of him/her/it then the spell would be cloning the particular being as well as calling him/her/it. If I am calling a kind of being, though, then this clause is making it clear that I can call multiple creatures of that kind.

As calling a particular being implies that we are calling a single creature, we then read on to find that "In the case of a single creature, you can control it if its HD do not exceed twice your caster level. A single creature with more HD than twice your caster level can't be controlled.". So, when I call a particular being that creature is called to me but will only be controlled by me if its HD is not more than twice my caster level. (I admit I am at a loss to explain why they repeated, albeit with rewording, the same sentence. Perhaps it was an effort to enhance clarity.)

A specific individual IS unique. Are you claiming that there is an entire race of people who are indentical in exactly every way to you? Are you not unique being? Isn't there only one Saeviomagy who lives where you live, posts on ENworld, drives your car and eats at your breakfast table?

You seem to be saying that the author of the spell text does not use the word "unique" in an absolute sense but in a more watered down form common to modern sales or self affirmation language (eg/ "This rundown shack offers a unique renovation challenge", "You are a unique individual", etc). If this is what you're getting at then it's an issue that is impossible for us to settle without the intent being made clear by WotC. If it turns out that the use of the word "unique" is intended the way you suggest then it's actually a misuse of the word because they don't mean unique at all, they mean particular. In the meantime, it's more reasonable to assume that they mean what they've written rather than assuming they mean something else, isn't it?

More problematic is that once you apply this watered down redefinition of "unique" then what creature isn't unique? And so, if every creature is unique then specifying a "kind of being" becomes impossible because they are all unique beings. Furthermore, because they are all unique only a single creature can be called and those single creatures can never be controlled by this spell, rendering the clauses discussing calling multiple creatures and the control of creatures irrelevant. At this point continuing with this reading of the spell is starting to resemble a kline bottle as it turns itself inside out.