What needs to be removed to make high level dungeons work?

[Username17]

I think the term "unique individual" is a legacy rule, maybe you could say its a function call to an invalid object (or something like that).

2E monsters had a FREQUENCY entry that says "FREQUENCY: Unique" if there is only one; entities like that got priviledged treatment for a handful of spells e.g. in 2E time stop didn't affect unique creatures.

AD&D had that rule too.

-Username17

[DSMatticus]

"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."

That's pretty damn explicit. There is really no argument here, whatsoever. You can say, "I want a balor [kind of being]," or you can say, "I want Bob the Balor [a particular being]." That is explicitly what that line says. Absolutely no ambiguity, whatsoever.

If your interpretation is that named beings constitute unique individuals instead of particular individuals, then you are faced with the proposition of trying to figure out what they mean by "particular being" that isn't already covered by "kind of being." And there's no good answer for that. The only reasonable explanation is named individuals are a particular being.

Is it broken as hell? Oh god yes, that's retarded beyond belief. The wording of that spell is mega-stupid, and no DM should ever let you use gate like that. Even though it is what the spell says.

What does "unique being" mean? I have absolutely no idea, but it really doesn't matter, because the very sentence before already tells us we can summon particular beings, and it's pretty clear that they mean named individuals. Apparently unique being means "a being which is the only one of its kind." The Tarrasque, for example.

Again, stupid as hell. House rule that shizzle. "Particular beings" should have the option just like "unique beings." You should only be able to compel generic types. But that is definitely not what the spell says, in all its glorious stupidity.

[K]

"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."

That's pretty damn explicit. There is really no argument here, whatsoever. You can say, "I want a balor [kind of being]," or you can say, "I want Bob the Balor [a particular being]." That is explicitly what that line says. Absolutely no ambiguity, whatsoever.

Wrong.

"Particular being" is an undefined term and in no place in the game does it tell us what that phrase may mean. To make it worse, there are no examples to take as a lead since every other summoning spell uses a different mechanic.

It could easily mean "a balor," since "a balor" is a particular being. A "kind of being" could easily be "a demon" since that also easily matches the criteria.

I mean, how is a "a balor" not a particular being? As a calling spell, Gate is bringing an actual guy and not a Platonic Ideal like the Summon variety of summoning spells. After the spell is over, that individual is free to seek out revenge on the summoner and if killed that individual is dead. As a calling spell, that guy has a name and his own story.

It's incredibly ambiguous, meaning the entire spell is a DM call as much as a Wish or most divinations. Just the problems with naming the thing you want to get are unworkable if you decide that the spell can bring "Bob the Balor" as I outlined in the previous post.

The only interpretation that makes the whole spell work is if it can't summon "Bob the Balor." Otherwise, you have to write four or five pages about naming conventions and how they interact with the spell considering that since there are infinite Balors on the infinite number of infinite Abyssal planes, meaning there are infinite numbers of balors named "Bob the Balor" and the spell has to select one (And your game is broken since people are summoning enemies.)

The spell seems simple and explicit until you think it through.

Look at Planar Binding. That uses the term "specific individual" and is unambiguous. Notice how it doesn't talk about "particular being." That alone is evidence that Gate doesn't bring specific individuals, otherwise that terminology would have been used.

Heck, Planar Binding even requires a "proper name," something that at least gives us some guidance as players and DMs.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Otherwise, you have to write four or five pages about naming conventions and how they interact with the spell considering that since there are infinite Balors on the infinite number of infinite Abyssal planes, meaning there are infinite numbers of balors named "Bob the Balor" and the spell has to select one.

Minor nitpick: you can have an infinite number of apples without any of them being an orange. While at least one name must designate an infinite number of balors, there's no need for any particular name to designate more than one.

[K]

Otherwise, you have to write four or five pages about naming conventions and how they interact with the spell considering that since there are infinite Balors on the infinite number of infinite Abyssal planes, meaning there are infinite numbers of balors named "Bob the Balor" and the spell has to select one.

Minor nitpick: you can have an infinite number of apples without any of them being an orange. While at least one name must designate an infinite number of balors, there's no need for any particular name to designate more than one.

By definition, an infinite number of apples does not have any oranges.

I think you are trying to come up with an example to say that if you partition an infinite set into subsets, only one subset needs to be infinite and the rest can be finite. That is totally true.

The problem is that I'm talking about probability, specifically the infinite monkey theorem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

[Aharon]

Why shouldn't you be able to use "Bob the Balor we met last Tuesday?"

As you said, planar binding lets you call a specific creature using its proper name. Gate calls a particular creature, but you don't need it's proper name. Any unambigous designation for the particular creature you wish to call suffices.

[K]

Why shouldn't you be able to use "Bob the Balor we met last Tuesday?"

Because the rules aren't clear enough to say that it works that way?

As you said, planar binding lets you call a specific creature using its proper name. Gate calls a particular creature, but you don't need it's proper name. Any unambigous designation for the particular creature you wish to call suffices.

The problem with that interpretation is that it's not supported by the rules.

For example, we have evidence showing what the spells require when you want to do something to a specific individual. Planar binding explicitly says "specific individuals" and the fact that Gate doesn't isn't because it has more lenient restrictions about calling individuals, but because it doesn't call individuals.

Spells that require unambiguous designation also say exactly that. True Resurrection works that way when bringing back destroyed people, for example. It's specifically says "you unambiguously identify the deceased in some fashion (reciting the deceased’s time and place of birth or death is the most common method)."

Text like "a particular creature" could mean "a balor" as easily as it could mean "Bob the Balor," but the fact that other spells of the same type use different language when they mean individuals is evidence that Gate does not call specific individuals.

[Aharon]

But your interpretation has the problem that the whole section of the spell wouldn't make any sense if it were right, as was pointed out repeatedly:

Why differentiate between particular being and kind of being if you cannot call a particular being? Why spell out that deities and unique beings don't have to come through? Under your interpretation, you couldn't specify them as targets in the first place.

[DSMatticus]

Well, it is possible to gate any specific balor (i.e. Bob the Balor) in atleast the same way you can gate deities or unique creatures. That is, they can choose to come through if they desire, even if you can't compel them. The spell mentions no mechanism for 'ambiguous naming,' and it specifically states... "you cause the gate to open in the immediate vicinity of the desired creature." It does not say, "in the immediate vicinity of a creature with the name you called." Presumably, the spell reads your intentions and the act of naming is symbolic. This, is of course, my fluff interpretation. Mechanically, fluff explanation doesn't matter - what matters is, as written, you get the desired creature, even if the name is not sufficient to be uniquely identifying.

Now onto the matter of particularity and uniqueness and gate... The gate spell mentions three classes of things it can summon, and each behaves differently.

1) Particular beings (summon one, can be compelled and possibly commanded - the wording is bad here).
2) Particular kind of beings (summon one to many, can be compelled and commanded)
3) Deities and unique beings (summon one, cannot be compelled or commanded).

I am going to drag out some merriam-webster.com definitions. I am using the top listed definitions.
Particular, adj: "of, relating to, or being a single person or thing"
Unique, adj: "being the only one"

If you call "balor" a particular being, that is wrong, because I can bring you two balors. Since I can bring you two balors, it cannot be a particular [i.e. single] being. However, each balor is individually a particular being. Particular means singular. It's right there. If you are calling something a particular being, you have to be able to look at it, point at it, and say, "there is one single being right there. It is particular." A balor is a particular kind of being though, because I can't bring you two different kinds of things which are both balors.

Furthermore, here are some of the exact quotes from the spell...

...you may then call a particular individual or kind of being through the gate...
... If you choose to call a kind of creature instead of a known individual...

The real source of confusion and problematics here is the definition of uniqueness. I am unique, in the sense that I am the only me. Bob the Balor is unique, in the sense that he is the only Bob the Balor (someone sharing the name doesn't mean they share his uniqueness, they have their own uniqueness with one trait in common). But Bob is not unique in the sense that he is the only balor.

The first definition of unique causes the spell to contradict itself in the span of two sentences - you can compel particular individuals, you cannot compel unique individuals. If unique == particular, that's stupid. So it has to be the second definition of unique - unique means "only one of its kind." Which is also a dumb definition on their part, but the only one that makes any sense.

Interesting side note: it may turn out that you can't control known individuals. Here is the text where it talks about controlling:

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.

See what I'm getting at it? The entire paragraph that talks about controlling has already specifically excluded "known individuals." And nowhere else in the spell does it talk about how to control them. The rules for controlling things via casting gate are for controlling kinds of creatures and not particular individuals.

[Aharon]

@DS=> Sidenote
Yes, I also pointed that out in my answer to RadiantPhoenix here.

Overall, your post is a nice summary, thanks for that.

[DSMatticus]

Ahh, then sorry for rehashing that bit of old news. I jumped into this conversation a bit late, and was paying more attention to the particular v. unique and naming debate.

[Chuckles0707]

The only interpretation that makes the whole spell work is if it can't summon "Bob the Balor." Otherwise, you have to write four or five pages about naming conventions and how they interact with the spell considering that since there are infinite Balors on the infinite number of infinite Abyssal planes, meaning there are infinite numbers of balors named "Bob the Balor" and the spell has to select one (And your game is broken since people are summoning enemies.)

Why are there infinite Balors but not infinite names?

[Archmage]

Balors are notoriously unimaginative parents.

[Swordslinger]

It could easily mean "a balor," since "a balor" is a particular being.

"A balor" is not a particular being. It's a set of beings that are the same race. The only time a racial name names a particular being is in the case of unique beings like "the Tarrasque". If you can't say "the balor" and know specifically which one you're talking about, you're not talking about a particular being.

[Josh_Kablack]

But your interpretation has the problem that the whole section of the spell wouldn't make any sense if it were right,

I kinda thought it was generally agreed that Gate did not in fact make any sense at all, and that the 3.5 update didn't really fix the issues with it.

I completely fail to see why anyone felt the need to rehash their take on precisely how it didn't make sense for three-soon-to-be-twenty {blasphemous expletive} pages.

[RadiantPhoenix]

So, I propose, because I haven't seen it done specifically yet in this thread, although I might have missed it, that we add "rules disagreements" to the list of things that need to be removed to make high level dungeons work. Does this sound good?

[DSMatticus]

Josh_Kablack, well... there's a difference between "making sense," and being a poorly-thought out spell. I am on board that Gate is a stupid spell that does stupid things and needs to be stopped. And I also agree that it's hard to make sense of because it's worded so horribly. But it's pretty clear what it does once you figure out what it's saying. I only see one real grammatical ambiguity, and that's whether or not you can control known individuals. (It mentions that you can control 'single creatures' summoned by the spell, but it mentions this in a paragraph that's talking about how to control creatures you summon via the kinds of creatures spell.)

Gate is broken and hard to read, but that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. It just makes the sort of sense no one wants in their game, because it's very, very bad.

RadiantPhoenix, don't we all wish that were possible.

[RadiantPhoenix]

Well, you can address rules disagreements on a case by case basis; I can come up with a couple ways, each of which has its own flaws:

* discuss it before it is used: tips off players to what is supposed to be a surprise (presuming it's supposed to be one)
* don't use tactics until the players use them, and have players check their tactics with you before using them so you're all clear on the rules: You are limited to the tactics at the players' current level and using their current classes
* Let the players decide how they want the rules to work and use it against them if they take more than you think they should: this is a bit of a dick move and could also be fairly difficult if your players are clever.

[Ikeren]

I think Gate is just off the list altogether

[Kaelik]

Josh_Kablack, well... there's a difference between "making sense," and being a poorly-thought out spell. I am on board that Gate is a stupid spell that does stupid things and needs to be stopped. And I also agree that it's hard to make sense of because it's worded so horribly. But it's pretty clear what it does once you figure out what it's saying. I only see one real grammatical ambiguity, and that's whether or not you can control known individuals. (It mentions that you can control 'single creatures' summoned by the spell, but it mentions this in a paragraph that's talking about how to control creatures you summon via the kinds of creatures spell.)

Gate is broken and hard to read, but that doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. It just makes the sort of sense no one wants in their game, because it's very, very bad.

Except that every single other person besides you disagrees with you on what Gate actually says, and whether or not it makes sense. We are seriously going on six interpretations of Gate in this thread. So yes, Gate doesn't make sense, because people cannot agree on what the rules actually are.

[CCarter]

I kinda thought it was generally agreed that Gate did not in fact make any sense at all, and that the 3.5 update didn't really fix the issues with it.

Wasn't there a huge list of problematic spells in 3.0 that someone compiled, that were never actually fixed in 3.5 ? (Apart from a handful of the really crazy ones, like haste/harm/heal/polymorph).

[echoVanguard]

I'm curious. It's obvious that there are several spells that have potential to break the game (Gate, Planar Binding, Scry, Teleport, etc). What, from a logical perspective, is the preferred method of addressing these?

1. Remove the offending spells.
2. Change the offending spells to prevent circumvention of content.

echo

[DSMatticus]

Kaelik, no, there are a handful here who seem to be heading in the same direction I am with the interpretation, and then there are a handful who think particular being means "a particular type of being narrower than a kind (i.e. balor)," which doesn't make sense because that is completely 100% not the definition of 'particular being' in plain English, and then there are a handful who think unique means "having a name," which causes the spell to refer to the same types of entities (particular beings, beings having a name; and unique beings, beings having a name) in two different ways with two different rules for calling them that contradict eachother. And that makes no sense unless you think Gate was written by a schizophrenic. (It was not - it was only written by an idiot.) There are some variations on these, but those are the big three.

I explained very clearly what a particular being is, and the argument is grounded in very, very simple English. I provided examples from Gate's text that make it clear 'particular being' is synonymous with 'known individual,' and 'particular individual.' I explained that the inability to uniquely identify creatures is irrelevant, because Gate's text very specifically states you get the 'desired creature,' not 'a creature with the desired name.'

Seriously, read my bigass post about Gate, point out where my argument breaks down, and then I'll either fix it or abandon it, depending on how devastating your criticism is. I am not inflexible, and I have been wrong before, but "people disagree with you," is the least compelling counterargument you could possibly make and I don't care to hear it because it is meaningless beyond words. If people disagree with me, they should have points upon which they disagree, and I'm happy to discuss the points and prove wrong or be proven wrong. (I'll be happier with the former, but I'm not arrogant enough to think the latter is impossible.)

And the fact that there are 'six interpretations' doesn't mean five of them aren't wrong. Being worded poorly does not mean something fails to make sense. It just makes it harder for the reader to make sense of. And while it is possible to write a spell that makes no sense, it isn't clear that gate is one of them until we have at least two valid interpretations that contradict eachother.

@echoVanguard
Well, that's going to depend a lot on the spell. Scry and teleport don't need to be removed or changed, the game needs to add anti-scry and anti-teleport spells that actually work and work at an appropriate level (at or one level before scry and teleport come online).

Gate needs to be unable to compel/command specific individuals. Planar Binding has some of the same problems, I think.

And all summoned/called creatures need to be unable to use any spell-likes that have an XP cost. Specifically, Wish and efreeti's, but there's tons of others that start to cause problems, too. Basically, just put really stringent requirements on the ability to use XP-costing spell-likes, because they break the game.

[RadiantPhoenix]

Actually, my interpretation of 'particular being' was that it pretty much meant the same thing as 'unique creature' in the description. I would like to make that clear, but not continue the argument/debate on gate, if that is possible.

[Kaelik]

I explained very clearly what a particular being is, and the argument is grounded in very, very simple English. I provided examples from Gate's text that make it clear 'particular being' is synonymous with 'known individual,' and 'particular individual.'

Actually, what you did is demonstrate that you don't even know the actual text of Gate in at least to places, and present an argument that even where it is correct, is still no more correct than other interpretations.

Seriously, read my bigass post about Gate,

I did. The second time you proved you didn't actually read the Gate spell to make that post, I stopped reading.

I am not inflexible, and I have been wrong before, but "people disagree with you," is the least compelling counterargument you could possibly make and I don't care to hear it because it is meaningless beyond words.

That's fine, except what I actually said was that no two people can agree on what Gate even means, so statements like "it's pretty clear what it does once you figure out what it's saying." are obviously incorrect.

You may think it's pretty clear to you, but everyone else thinks it's pretty clear to them that it means something completely different than what it means to you. Hence, not pretty clear.