[DnD 3.5] Intimidation blocked by mind control?

[theonesin]

I've ran into a problem in a campaign I'm playing. I made a character with a good focus on demoralizing(Fearsome armor, Imperious Command), but I've run into nothing but enemies "immune" to it. One of which was undead, which I know full well are mindless and thus immune.

The problem is that the majority of enemies have been under some form of "mind control" or "hive mind" effect. It's kind of like dominate, but a special "DM version" of it that makes them immune to intimidation.

The DM is rather new though, and no one I've asked knows of any specific rules that state intimidation doesn't work in this situation. Is there any precedent for this, or is the DM just pulling it out of nowhere?

[Kelb_Panthera]

I've ran into a problem in a campaign I'm playing. I made a character with a good focus on demoralizing(Fearsome armor, Imperious Command), but I've run into nothing but enemies "immune" to it. One of which was undead, which I know full well are mindless and thus immune.

The problem is that the majority of enemies have been under some form of "mind control" or "hive mind" effect. It's kind of like dominate, but a special "DM version" of it that makes them immune to intimidation.

The DM is rather new though, and no one I've asked knows of any specific rules that state intimidation doesn't work in this situation. Is there any precedent for this, or is the DM just pulling it out of nowhere?

The DM's pulling it out of nowhere. Fear affects and compulsions are not mutually exclusive. If mind control is making them swing at you, fear is just making them swing less effectively. I could maybe see a case for forcing them to cower if they reach frightened or panicked since the compulsion may not let them run away, but the fear effect should definitely be in place in some way.

[LanSlyde]

A little off topic, but if your looking to be a fear engine check out this thing:

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Righteous_Rager_%283.5e_Optimized_Character_Build% 29

It's pretty effective. Almost exactly like my own fear engine.

[GenghisDon]

maybe you are "too good" at it & thus just getting nerfed?

I'm not a fan of that, but it's probably better than a completely broken game where everything you meet just cowers before you.

Talk to the DM about it.

[theonesin]

maybe you are "too good" at it & thus just getting nerfed?

I'm not a fan of that, but it's probably better than a completely broken game where everything you meet just cowers before you.

Talk to the DM about it.

As I said though, I've NOT been able to use demoralizing even ONCE. This isn't a reaction to me demoralizing everything and having the DM throw these at us to nerf me. As soon as my character entered the game, there was NOTHING we fought that I could use it on.

[LanSlyde]

As I said though, I've NOT been able to use demoralizing even ONCE. This isn't a reaction to me demoralizing everything and having the DM throw these at us to nerf me. As soon as my character entered the game, there was NOTHING we fought that I could use it on.

Yeah, not gonna lie, fear stacking shenanigans are one of those things that can very easily break a game. Now, I can understand sending things at you on occasion that are immune to fear. But making up some sort of fake rule saying that compelled creatures are immune is just being a silly DM. Talk to your DM, inform him of his mistake, and if he starts throwing things at you really are immune to fear try to get him to throw you a bone now and then. If he's still being spiteful about it then ask if you can rework your character. IF all else fails I suggest breaking his game and moving on to another DM.

[Keneth]

Even if creatures are controlled, they can still be demoralized. The DM may rule that they can't run away, but all penalties for fear should still apply unless the creatures are completely mindless or immune to mind-affecting effects.

[GenghisDon]

I dunno, I can see the thought...Domination can force a critter to do whatever, so magical compusion vs fear effects probably should have some effect. I think I'd rule thusly, and just allow the -2 penalty for the fear, no flee/cower (as the domination type magic doesn't let them, or let them do so for more than a round or so)

fear is just a specific compusion in essence, so it is understandable to see a conflict between opposing abilities develop. One might compare the potentcy of the sources, ect.

Regardless, as I said before, talk to the DM about it.

At worst, perhaps you can switch out the silly/broken imperious comand feat for something else

[Khatoblepas]

There's no precident that a hivemind makes someone immune to fear. Formians have an explicit hivemind, and that just makes them not flat footed. Swarms have a literal hivemind, but they're explicitly not immune to targetted mind affecting effects. A dominated creature isn't a meat puppet, either:


Once you have given a dominated creature a command, it continues to attempt to carry out that command to the exclusion of all other activities except those necessary for day-to-day survival (such as sleeping, eating, and so forth)

It will get scared, and it will run away if necessary if it fears for it's life, as obviously self destructive orders will go ignored. A dominated creature still has a survival instinct, and if someone makes them fear for their very existance, they're going to react to it. It seems the DM has a very specific idea of what he wants his monsters to do, and being affected by the player is not one of them. You should talk to your DM and tell him that you enjoy Demoralization as a mechanic and that you feel a bit useless if he fiats away your main ability, especially if that's your main trick.

Remember that Compulsion and Fear effects, while similar and under the umbrella of Mind Affecting, are not the same, and shouldn't be treated as interchangable.

Imperious Command is a pretty okay feat. I really love it when playing as a martial character, especially if I want to use Barbarian's Time Stop.

[GenghisDon]

No precident doesn't mean there can't be one set. I'm not in favour of nerfing ability X out of hand mind you, but some sort of opposed roll or reduced effect is certainly imaginable.

[Khatoblepas]

No precident doesn't mean there can't be one set. I'm not in favour of nerfing ability X out of hand mind you, but some sort of opposed roll or reduced effect is certainly imaginable.

OP asked for a precident in the books. I think making fear and compulsion interchangable is a bit dumb, really, since they're completely different statuses. Giving people immune to compulsion a bonus against fear would, for instance, make The Paladin of Freedom stronger than the regular Paladin, since the regular paladin only has immunity to fear, whereas the PoF would have immunity to Compulsion AND a bonus against fear effects, which I don't think WoTC would have wanted, intended, or meant.

This kind of thing is similar to how some people think that golems and the undead are immune to Illusion (Figment) spells because they're immune to mind affecting abilities, when figments aren't mind affecting (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/undeadseethroughillusions.html). It just isn't meant in the rules, and trying to shoehorn houserules like that just makes things complicated and breaks other things, and once again makes melee have less nice things. A shame.

[Psyren]

By RAMS, Fear should still work on dominated creatures. If you think about it, the dominating caster is not directing his thrall's every action (otherwise said thrall would be making attacks with the caster's own BAB and weapon proficiencies etc., not their own.) Rather, the caster is simply telling the thrall what s/he wants them to do, and the thrall executes to this best of his/her ability. Well, fear can interfere with what the best of their ability actually is, therefore I would expect it to have an effect. And if the fear is strong enough, you might even trigger the "against its nature" will save, as forcing someone to fight in a situation where they would normally turn tail and flee would be against their nature.

RAW is easy - Intimidate is not a compulsion, so the opposing compulsions clause doesn't come into play. Therefore you would just stack the penalties on top of the dominate. Adjudicating whether a monster would fight or flee is tougher but see below for my thoughts on that.

For RAI, there's an article about adjudicating compulsions, that gives precedent for other spells/effects being able to change what acts would be in a subject's nature (and thus changing the effectiveness of domination effects as a result.) This goes back to my belief that forcing someone to stand and fight where they would normally turn tail and flee should give them another saving throw vs. the domination effect.

[rot42]

If your DM is homebrewing up an extra scary BBEG who turns people into his/her/its mindless slaves I could see it, but as others have stated that would definitely be a houserule. Domination is one of the places in the rules where a quick read might be misleading - like darkness the spell - domination works more like brainwashing by a cult than like creating a mindless automaton. Fear is irrational - the hero/ine cowers in fear no matter how much s/he *wants* to save the town from the rampaging dragon, and the dominated critter cowers in fear despite orders to the contrary. I am not aware of any specific rules quote that compulsions do not overrule Intimidate, but neither effect mentions any such interaction, which would be expected if they did.

It might also be that your relatively DM envisions fights going a certain way (basically the two sides trade blows until one of them can swing no more) and is not sure how to cope with you altering the landscape so effectively. Either way, you would not be out of line to point out nonconfrontationally that your build is not working out the way you planned and request that either the enemies be varied or you be allowed to rebuild or create a new character. Point out the analogy of building a Rogue for an all-ooze campaign, perhaps.

[theonesin]

Well I tried, but the DM is keeping the houseruled no-intimidation stuff. He says this arc of the game will be over soon, and that the hive-minds will be gone after that. I can only hope we finish this soon.

[Slipperychicken]

Compulsion does not make you immune to fear. Period. Otherwise, spellcasters would be casting Dominate Person on themselves to benefit from immunity.


Your DM is making it up. He might be intentionally nerfing you, or he might think it "makes sense" for a hivemind to be fear-immune. Fear can be brutally effective when done right, against creatures who aren't immune.

It's good to have backup-tactics, because almost every tactic can be countered. Don't rely completely on Sneak Attack, or Mind-Affecting, because all kinds of things are immune to those, even before the DM breaks the rules to screw you. This is part of the reason that Rogues are considered bad, because their main attraction doesn't work on a lot of creatures.

[theonesin]

Oh, I have other tactics(I'm a factotum and I do tripping pretty well), as I went into this knowing that there ARE enemies immune to fear(namely undead). I just wasn't expecting to NEVER be able to use it.