Would you allow?

[LaughingRogue]

One of my players is playing a beguiler/mindbender(1) --- and he has proposed this to me.

" I want to take a cohort with leadership but in a slightly different way --- I want to dominate my cohort into being my cohort , as such I would like to dominate a future opponent (I do not want help from you in this) but I want to call this dominated creature my cohort. I would like to for the creature to not get the saves it normally would for taking actions that it would not normally take. If not, I will just take a cohort normally but this idea fits a lot better RP wise with my character"

Would you allow my player to do this?

"Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +2 bonus. Obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out. Once control is established, the range at which it can be exercised is unlimited, as long as you and the subject are on the same plane. You need not see the subject to control it."

^^^ the rules about resisting control of a dominate.

[Kefkafreak]

But this is just a refflufing of Leadership, he's just going to roleplay it as if he dominated his opponent. Why would you not allow it?

[Amnestic]

Basically sounds like he wants to refluff Leadership, with the additional handicap that you get to design his cohort for him.

So he's spending a feat on a slightly-worse version of Leadership than normal.

Yes, I would allow it.

[LaughingRogue]

But this is just a refflufing of Leadership, he's just going to roleplay it as if he dominated his opponent. Why would you not allow it?

Actually he's going to actually dominate an opponent and ask to use it as his cohort and try to skirt around the rules to how dominate is actually supposed to work. Slight difference , i'm not sure if i'm opposed.

[Amnestic]

Actually he's going to actually dominate an opponent and ask to use it as his cohort and try to skirt around the rules to how dominate is actually supposed to work. Slight difference , i'm not sure if i'm opposed.

...except you said he's spending a feat on Leadership. The Dominate thing is mostly just fluff, as far as I can tell. He'll get a cohort either way, but doing it his way lets you better control what the cohort is capable of.

[Boci]

Actually he's going to actually dominate an opponent and ask to use it as his cohort and try to skirt around the rules to how dominate is actually supposed to work. Slight difference , i'm not sure if i'm opposed.

Just to be clear: he doesn't plan to actually take the feat leadership? Otherwise I see no problem with this.


...except you said he's spending a feat on Leadership. The Dominate thing is mostly just fluff, as far as I can tell. He'll get a cohort either way, but doing it his way lets you better control what the cohort is capable of.

To be fair though how loyal a cohort is always has been a gray area. Dominate without a second save makes sure they are completly loyal.

[vampire2948]

What's the difference? He wouldn't have to recast Dominate Person every few days? If so, then that seems pretty ok to me.

[LaughingRogue]

...except you said he's spending a feat on Leadership. The Dominate thing is mostly just fluff, as far as I can tell. He'll get a cohort either way, but doing it his way lets you better control what the cohort is capable of.

I agree , thanks playground --- I may or may not be running this by you before i run it by my DM >.> <.<

[LaughingRogue]

What's the difference? He wouldn't have to recast Dominate Person every few days? If so, then that seems pretty ok to me.

Actually there would normally be a 5 percent chance to roll a 20 each time he(I) --- asked it to make an action against its nature.

[Hanuman]

If he has the leadership feat he can have a cohort of up to -2 his ECL, if not it would not be a cohort but that doesn't matter.

What he's actually saying is that he wants to have a dominated being in his party without it drawing from the party's xp earnings, which is calculated under the leadership feat and balanced accordingly.

You can march around with a hundred soldiers if you want, but that doesn't mean that if they slay a dragon you level up.

[Badgerish]

One possible advantage is the dominated-cohort having knowledge of their faction's plans. It makes sense that you do know this and there are other ways to get the information out of the NPC, but this seems like it would make it easier.


If I would allow Leadership*, I would allow the character to take Leadership and do this, but with one limitation:
Some dominated-cohorts would suffer some memory loss from the process.


* I wouldn't allow Leadership unless it fit the campaign or the character who wanted it was notably underpowered and the player was competant enough.

[darksolitaire]

You can march around with a hundred soldiers if you want, but that doesn't mean that if they slay a dragon you level up.

You just might, depending on circumstances. For example, if they're your followers and your fighting with them.

[LaughingRogue]

One possible advantage is the dominated-cohort having knowledge of their faction's plans. It makes sense that you do know this and there are other ways to get the information out of the NPC, but this seems like it would make it easier.


If I would allow Leadership*, I would allow the character to take Leadership and do this, but with one limitation:
Some dominated-cohorts would suffer some memory loss from the process.


* I wouldn't allow Leadership unless it fit the campaign or the character who wanted it was notably underpowered and the player was competant enough.

I like the memory loss idea , well there are 4 players and the game was written for 4-6 ... so I think leadership is feasible in the situation.

[Person_Man]

As long as other players are fine with it, and his increased power level from Leadership, I'd be fine with it.

[Drachasor]

As long as other players are fine with it, and his increased power level from Leadership, I'd be fine with it.

I agree with this, but the character also couldn't be good-aligned. This is essentially spending a feat on a special buff for Dominate that can only be used on one person at a time.

[LaughingRogue]

I agree with this, but the character also couldn't be good-aligned. This is essentially spending a feat on a special buff for Dominate that can only be used on one person at a time.

I completely agree, this is not a good aligned act.

[Fouredged Sword]

Unless you dominated him to keep him out of trouble/danger while repetedly submiting him to the conversion rules from the BoED.

Dominate is not a spell with the evil descriptor, it can just be used for evil. It is no more good or bad than a fireball. Just don't shoot the fireball into an orphanage or force the dominated person to undergo suicide missions.

[Hanuman]

Unless you dominated him to keep him out of trouble/danger while repetedly submiting him to the conversion rules from the BoED.

Dominate is not a spell with the evil descriptor, it can just be used for evil. It is no more good or bad than a fireball. Just don't shoot the fireball into an orphanage or force the dominated person to undergo suicide missions.
Last time I checked slavery and brainwashing weren't good acts.

[Greenish]

Last time I checked slavery and brainwashing weren't good acts.Last time you checked, it wasn't BoED you were checking, right? :smalltongue:

[Keld Denar]

Last time I checked, Mindbender is a non-good only PrC, so the point is moot.

[LaughingRogue]

Last time I checked, Mindbender is a non-good only PrC, so the point is moot.

exactly, I was wondering why people thought that it mattered?

[Vandicus]

No. The leadership feat gives a cohort who is loyal, but not a cohort who is dominated and gets no saves regarding actions that are essentially contradictory to the dominated person's personality/alignment. For the price of a successful dominate, the player is essentially getting a cohort, but more obedient. He can dominate people normally for extended periods of time, so there's no reason to take the leadership feat except for the advantage he wants, that of a cohort who must follow all of his commands. Either the guy is making a really bad decision, or he plans to be inordinately demanding/evil and abuse the lack of additional saves against his domination powers.

[LaughingRogue]

No. The leadership feat gives a cohort who is loyal, but not a cohort who is dominated and gets no saves regarding actions that are essentially contradictory to the dominated person's personality/alignment. For the price of a successful dominate, the player is essentially getting a cohort, but more obedient. He can dominate people normally for extended periods of time, so there's no reason to take the leadership feat except for the advantage he wants, that of a cohort who must follow all of his commands. Either the guy is making a really bad decision, or he plans to be inordinately demanding/evil and abuse the lack of additional saves against his domination powers.

well or he and i know him well --- loves loves loves roleplaying and it's something that will give him a lot more fun and connection with the game and his character who is an obsessed enchanter and loves enchanting--- i'm more than happy to bend or flat out remove rules and allow him to do such, as I would with any of my players.