what rules do you favor?

[Camarath]

No. That language was in 3rd edition as well. A Unique BEing is something like the Terrasque, not Steve or Lord Soth.

If you could be described as "The Human" you are a unique being. If you are described as "Bob, a human" that's no good.

It would be very difficult to name a particular being if simply having a specific name made you unique, wouldn't it?

-Frank

It seems to me that what exactly constitutes an "unique being" (not capitalized) is not specified and would thus be open to interpretation including the interpretation that all individuals count as unique beings and that only when the caster names a "kind of being" is he able to command the being that is summoned.

 

[Nail]

It seems to me that what exactly constitutes an "unique being" (not capitalized) is not specified and would thus be open to interpretation including the interpretation that all individuals count as unique beings and that only when the caster names a "kind of being" is he able to command the being that is summoned.

It looks pretty clear. With Gate you may either:

• call "a kind of creature"
  
  or
  
• "a known individual". This includes any individual, from "Bob Smith, whose fields are southeast of Edgerton's water well", to Asmodeus. Unique does not imply powerful. (The thought that it does mean that is a hold-over from previous editions.)

If you chose to do the former, you may command it...blah, blah, blah. (As this creature is then an extension of your power, you don't get XP for defeating it, anymore than anyone that attacks you would get XP for it.)

If you chose to do the latter, it is neither under your control nor compelled to come through the gate.

And as for the "infinite wishes from summoned genies" problem: Fixed. Summoned creatures can't use powers that cost XP.

**************
Frank, I think you'll find that in each of your so-called "infinite-power loops", there can be found flaws in your arguments. I hope I do not surprise you, but others have thought of these as well.

 

[schpeelah]

Except the point with summoned Efreet is that their Wish is a spell-like ability, which has no components and therefore does not cost XP. The first fix you need would be that XP components are exempt from the "spell-likes have no components" rule unless specified otherwise. Which under Wish Economy would probably be enough.

Wish Economy is "high level characters have so many ways of accumulating piles of gold, let's say any magic items such characters would care about cannot be bought with piles of gold no matter how large so we do not need to worry when the PCs get enough gold for a Great Wyrm to sleep on". So named because of the Efreet trick and b/c the threshold chosen was the Wish's limit of 15k.

 

[Dandu]

1. Thread Necromancy.
2. Gate is a [Creation] or [Calling] spell depending on the function chosen. It is not a [Summoning] spell in any case.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Except the point with summoned Efreet is that their Wish is a spell-like ability, which has no components and therefore does not cost XP.

This thread should not have been resurrected, but...a summoned efreeti refuses to use any spell-like abilities that would cost XP if they were spells. (PHB, page 173.) As Dandu pointed out, however, gate is not a summoning spell.

 

[Alexander123]

Just one question about thread necromancy, why are people opposed to it? After all, it doesn't harm anyone. I know this probably isn't the thread for it, but as I was reading the posts I came accross it and thought I ask the question.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Just one question about thread necromancy, why are people opposed to it?

Bump (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Alexander123]

Alright, thanks.

 

[frankthedm]

Just one question about thread necromancy, why are people opposed to it?

Nothing wrong with it if the post doing the necromancy has at least some merit. Unfortunately some online communities have a prejudice against older threads, thankfully Enworld is not one of those. General mods here take the "If the necromancing post does not have enough merit, the topic will fall fast enough" approach. Indeed, old threads are kept from pretty much the beginning of the board.

 

[Orius]

It's a bit disconcerting when a new poster brings back an old thread that's been inactive for years, and where some of the participants are no longer active in the forum. It's basically a conversation that's run its course and is being restarted again; it feels a bit weird, a sort of non-sequitur almost.

Even regulars occasional necro threads too, but there's kind of a different feel when you necro a thread you participated in to continue a converstation at a later date.