# Forum > Gaming > Roleplaying Games > D&D 3e/3.5e/d20 >  Planar binding contract skill

## mehs

Should there be a skill for writing contracts for when binding outsiders? If so, should it be profession (barrister) or linguistics?

In general, I can see the argument that the contract should be left to role-playing, but at that point it becomes an exercise in if the player or gm spends more time on the wording. 

Technically speaking, the skill to write contracts would be profession (barrister), however almost no pc would take that skill. Linguistics does make some sense, as it is the skill to understand wording as well as analyze documents.

Or is this covered in the opposed charisma check?

----------


## RandomPeasant

I think that leaving it to role-playing is a bad idea, precisely because it ends up with an escalatory spiral of who's better at real-world lawyering. Unless you are specifically interested in that, it's probably a bad thing to add to your game.

My opinion is that, yes, this is what the opposed Charisma check is intended to model. You could reasonably argue, I think, to allow INT or WIS checks from the player, but while that adds a certain level of fluff consistency, it also makes an already-powerful spell more powerful for relatively little return.

----------


## mehs

Should there be a possibility to induce risk of the outsider having the upper hand in the final contract? With charisma check, you just maintain it for a few days until you roll high enough.

----------


## RandomPeasant

I suppose you could do something like declaring that the outcome of the Charisma check isn't known to the caster. But I would ask how much you really expect that to get you, and what behavior you expect it to encourage. Is _planar binding_ balanced if sometimes you get ripped off, or the creature backstabs you in a fight? Is balancing it that way a better experience than balancing it by limiting it to a number, power, or type of minions that is itself balanced? If players can't rely on "the CHA check worked, so it does what I want", are they likely to roll the dice, or to make use of threats, payment schemes, or minion choices that will result in a creature that would rationally not betray them even in the face of less-than-airtight contract? "The summoner forgot the difference between presently and momentarily and so lost their soul forever to the fires of hell" can be a fun story, but the contexts in which it is fun do not seem to me to overlap very much with the ones that typically occur in a roleplaying game.

----------


## Thunder999

The opposed charisma check is the negotiation, arguably it would make more sense as an actual skill, but that would really just make it easier to optimise your bonus and make the spell more reliable.

----------


## icefractal

I'd consider the Charisma check an override to force the entity into taking a bad deal.  In which case you don't need to word it as carefully, because it can just be unfair.

"In exchange for completing this task [definition of complete], I will give you [stuff], half up front, half on completion" - no Charisma check needed if they consider the terms reasonable, but if they're a tricky type like a Devil then you may need that contract-writing check.

"In exchange for completing this task in accordance with the letter and spirit of my directions, I will let you return to your plane afterwards, _if_ I consider it truly completed." - Charisma check very needed, but it's hard to twist the wording.

I'd probably use Linguistics since PCs could plausibly have that and it's an underused skill, but if someone _did_ have Profession (barrister) or Craft (contract) they could certainly use that instead.

Also, personally speaking, I wouldn't make _most_ conjured entities care that much about contractual wording.  Mostly just Lawful ones, and for the LG ones, if you're not their enemy then they'd tell you about mistakes you were making in the wording.  Some LN would too.

----------


## Crake

Planar binding is NOT a contract, its kidnapping followed by a ransom demand in the form of service. If you want an amicable contract, then you should be using planar ally

----------


## Zanos

> My opinion is that, yes, this is what the opposed Charisma check is intended to model. You could reasonably argue, I think, to allow INT or WIS checks from the player, but while that adds a certain level of fluff consistency, it also makes an already-powerful spell more powerful for relatively little return.


I think the Charisma check models supernaturally forcing your will on the outsider to bind it to to your terms, not necessarily crafting an ironclad contract. There is a spell in Dragon Magazine 336 that lets you use Intelligence, _Ensnarement._

Legalese debates are boring and crafting a contract that just says "you have to do what I want" is pretty easy.  If you and your DM are interested in modeling the consequences of poorly worded legalese, which most people are not, you could reuse the rolls from Fiendish Codex 2 for negotiating your way out of hell, which IIRC is the opposed average of Diplomacy, Profession(Law), and Knowledge(Religion), which also covers all three mental stats.




> Planar binding is NOT a contract, its kidnapping followed by a ransom demand in the form of service. If you want an amicable contract, then you should be using planar ally


It's used both ways, Fiendish Codex II has rules for bribing devils but the spell is also used canonically in both adventures and examples as a form of slavery.

----------


## redking

_Planar binding_  is different beast to Faustian contracts. If you have a devil in a binding circle, you aren't signing a contract with them but trying to compel their service, whether through inducements or threats.

As Zanos says, Fiendish Codex II has the information about Faustian contracts. I'd probably allow an intelligence check to figure out whether the contract is a good one or a bad one. At the end of the day, all Faustian contracts are bad and the only way to beat a devil in a Faustian contract is to not contract with the devils at all.

----------


## Crake

> It's used both ways, Fiendish Codex II has rules for bribing devils but the spell is also used canonically in both adventures and examples as a form of slavery.


Correct, but faustian bargains have their own mechanics. You can use planar binding to merely summon a being in a safe environment, and negotiate, but that is not covered by the rules of planar binding. The cha check has nothing to do with negotiation, it has to do with you binding the creature to your will. The more amicable the terms, the more pliable the opposing creatures will becomes (hence the bonus to cha checks on a favourable demand), but it is still a demand, and the creature is FORCED to partake.

If you use planar binding to simply summon a creature and engage in an agreement of some kind, then dont use the planar binding rules for anything more than containing the creature while you work on terms.

----------


## RandomPeasant

> Planar binding is NOT a contract, its kidnapping followed by a ransom demand in the form of service. If you want an amicable contract, then you should be using planar ally


No it's not. _planar binding_ brings a creature to you so you can negotiate it. You certainly _can_ threaten it to make it do what you want when it doesn't want to, but it is entirely possible to use the spell to facilitate fair negotiations.




> Correct, but faustian bargains have their own mechanics. You can use planar binding to merely summon a being in a safe environment, and negotiate, but that is not covered by the rules of planar binding.


Sure it is. _planar binding_ lets you summon the creature. You can then negotiate with it exactly as you could any other creature. It's not like the spell somehow _stops_ you from saying "I will give you 1000 GP for something you value at 800 GP". Certainly, a lot of people on the forums assume that the way you use it is to beat up whatever you call until it does what you want, but there's actually a lot of room for mutually beneficial exchange between a spellcaster who has a wide range of spells with strong use limitations and the many outsiders who have narrower ranges of abilities they can use more often.

----------


## Crake

> No it's not. _planar binding_ brings a creature to you so you can negotiate it. You certainly _can_ threaten it to make it do what you want when it doesn't want to, but it is entirely possible to use the spell to facilitate fair negotiations.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it is. _planar binding_ lets you summon the creature. You can then negotiate with it exactly as you could any other creature. It's not like the spell somehow _stops_ you from saying "I will give you 1000 GP for something you value at 800 GP". Certainly, a lot of people on the forums assume that the way you use it is to beat up whatever you call until it does what you want, but there's actually a lot of room for mutually beneficial exchange between a spellcaster who has a wide range of spells with strong use limitations and the many outsiders who have narrower ranges of abilities they can use more often.


That is indeed what I said. You can use the spell to facilitate an amicable arrangement, but that is not representative of the spells mechanics. You can use the spell to safely summon a creature (which you may have even contacted beforehand, and arranged a time to call it so it is not randomly ripped from whatever it was doing), keep it  safely contained, and then bargain with it to come to an arrangement, even offering to return it home if you cant come to an agreement, but the creature would have to put a significant amount of trust in you that you wont force a demand upon it.

All of that negotiation and contracting however, is not what the cha check represents. You COULD use the cha check at the end of all the negotiation to solidify the agreement and ensure the creature follows it, but that is not necessary, as you can use the cha check to make the creature do ANYTHING (bar suicidal demands, obv).

Thats all beyond the scope of the spell however, if you want to do negotiations and contracts, that would be completely separate mechanics.

----------


## Zanos

> Correct, but faustian bargains have their own mechanics. You can use planar binding to merely summon a being in a safe environment, and negotiate, but that is not covered by the rules of planar binding. The cha check has nothing to do with negotiation, it has to do with you binding the creature to your will. The more amicable the terms, the more pliable the opposing creatures will becomes (hence the bonus to cha checks on a favourable demand), but it is still a demand, and the creature is FORCED to partake.
> 
> If you use planar binding to simply summon a creature and engage in an agreement of some kind, then dont use the planar binding rules for anything more than containing the creature while you work on terms.


I'm not referring to Faustian Bargains, FC2 specifically has rules for negotiating with fiends called via _planar binding_ for the service of that specific fiend.

----------


## Telonius

You might want to check out Tome of Magic. The Binder class deals with vestiges, but has a mechanic for how good the bargains are. The check is d20+binder level+Charisma modifier. Each vestige has its own DC. If you want to implement something for all planar entities, you could do something similar (with "caster level" taking the place of "binder level").

----------


## Crake

> I'm not referring to Faustian Bargains, FC2 specifically has rules for negotiating with fiends called via _planar binding_ for the service of that specific fiend.


Ah right, I went and had a look at those rules, its not really made clear if those are intended as alternate rules for negotiating vs a more descript set of rules for the cha check already built into planar binding. I'm leaning toward the former, since if it's for the latter, it's a straight up downgrade to the existing rules.

----------

