Some TLC for Enchantment

[Deepbluediver]

Ok, first the rant, then the rules. (skip down to avoid the explanation if you wish)

I don't really like the fact that the school of Enchantment magic seems to get so much more hate than anything else. What I'm talking about is that more than any other group of spells, entire categories of creatures are completely immune , and many MANY homebrewed classes (or fixes) gain special powers of resistance.
Apparently enchantment is a bigger danger than being able to summon monsters, raise the dead, see the future, or transform into a dragon. (Illusions also suffer to a degree, I admit)

And it kind of sucks, to try and be an enchanter.
I can't address all the homebrews at once, except to say that if you must give your class defenses against magic, try to come up with something more interesting and unique than "can't be enchanted because of strong will". Seriously, it's the most overused cliche ever.
Here's a few ideas to get you started:

Rogue, sneaky- immune to divination
Monk, seeks perfection of life- immune to necromancy
Ranger- "summoned creatures" as a favored enemy
Assassin- counters Abjuration
etc, etc, etc.

When it comes to immunities due to creature type though, we all play by (mostly) the same rules. There are 5 types of creatures with the "Mindless" quality or something similar, making them totally immune to any mind-affecting ability whatsoever: Plants, Oozes, Vermin, Constructs, and Undead.

Frankly, the first 3 really confuse me, because vermin can be animals in many cases, and are definitely living creatures; they just happen to come in swarms. Oozes and plants ACT like animals, just with slightly different biology. Many of them have intelligence scores, and even the dumbest ones must have survival instincts. In other words, they may not have a cluster of nerves that we can identify as a brain, but there is something determining control of their actions.

Constructs and undead don't have a brain, and are controlled by magic, but there still needs to be something giving them instructions. Basically, unless the caster or whoever is controlling them is literally sitting there an manipulating each limb like a marionette, there needs to be something giving enough autonomy that they can follow basic instructions like "attack!", "fetch!", and "make me sandwich!". Sort of like a magical computer program. And as I'm certain we are all well aware, it's pretty easy to screw up a computer program.


So with that, I suggest two new designations (or one new and one reworked) for the formerly mindless creatures.
Update: I've slightly rearranged what creature types fall into each category.


Rules Start Here
Plants, Elementals, Vermin, and free-willed Undead are "Brainless".
Constructs, Oozes and non-intelligent Undead are "Mindless".

Brainless: the creature lacks a brain and/or complex nervous system. It is driven by either primal instinct or a magically-linked soul. This grants a +4 racial bonus to resist any mind affecting abilities.

Mindless: the creature lacks any kind of individual thought patterns at all, usually because it does not have a brain and/or is controlled by magic. It recieves a +8 racial bonus to resist any mind affecting abilities. Any mind-affecting ability that manages to penetrate does not have it's usual affect, instead it inteferes with the magical compulsions driving the creature, causing it to become Confused for 1d6 rounds.

Spell Changes
Any spell that alters the behavior of a creature is moved to the Enchanting school: Control Undead, Control Plants (formerly transmutation, WTH?), Cause Fear, etc.


Let me know what you think.
Update: I've reworked a few Enchantment spells, mostly to reduce duration. Find them in this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14550741&postcount=16).

[Grod_The_Giant]

I like it. It'll make beguilers a lot happier, if nothing else.

On a related note, I suspect the one reason that people are afraid of enchantments is that so many of them take away your control of your character-- either flat action denial, such as hold person, or things that actively force the character to act against the player's wishes (charm person, dominate person, etc)

[Rogue Shadows]

I like it. It'll make beguilers a lot happier, if nothing else.

On a related note, I suspect the one reason that people are afraid of enchantments is that so many of them take away your control of your character-- either flat action denial, such as hold person, or things that actively force the character to act against the player's wishes (charm person, dominate person, etc)

This, basically. It's one thing to lose a character because he took one too many fireballs to the face. It's quite another to lose your character because he was dominated into attacking his fellow party members and so had to be put down by said fellow party members for their own survival.


When it comes to immunities due to creature type though, we all play by (mostly) the same rules. There are 5 types of creatures with the "Mindless" quality, making them totally immune to any mind-affecting ability whatsoever: Plants, Oozes, Vermin, Constructs, and Undead.

I generally like the idea of what you're suggesting...but I think that this is taking things too far. The intention behind Enchantment seems clear: it works on living animals. Plants and oozes are immune because they're not animals; constructs and undead, because they're not living.

You've got a pretty solid case with vermin, though; it doesn't make sense that they're immune. The intention might be that because their brains are so simple, they can't be manipulated, but really there's no particular reason why this should be the case.

The point being that Enchantment that can work on undead, constructs, plants, and oozes, becomes...well, weird to think about.

I recommend, though, that if you want to really make Enchantment make more sense, then Necromancy spells like cause fear should be made into Enchantment spells.

To make things up to Necromancy, make the cure spells and the like Necromancy spells.

Forget Conjuration; it doesn't need help.

[TopCheese]

I like it. It'll make beguilers a lot happier, if nothing else.

On a related note, I suspect the one reason that people are afraid of enchantments is that so many of them take away your control of your character-- either flat action denial, such as hold person, or things that actively force the character to act against the player's wishes (charm person, dominate person, etc)

Well... I've always been a proponent of changing those spells, getting rid of those spells, or making PCs immune to those spells (just because they are PCs).

Those spells just are horrid for PC vs PC fights and really cause some PCs to go on power trips.

@Deepbluediver: I like your changes and will try to play with these during a session or two and see how it is.

[Realms of Chaos]

Does enchantment even need this type of help? :smallconfused:

I'm serious. The massive enchantment resistance of things shouldn't hurt an enchanter unless everything you run into (such as in a zombie apocalypse game) has immunity. Having Mind-controlled servants means being able to sick them against those targets that you can't mind control and other enchantment buffs (like heroism) help make this even better.

[Deepbluediver]

I suspect the one reason that people are afraid of enchantments is that so many of them take away your control of your character-- either flat action denial, such as hold person, or things that actively force the character to act against the player's wishes (charm person, dominate person, etc)

This, basically. It's one thing to lose a character because he took one too many fireballs to the face. It's quite another to lose your character because he was dominated into attacking his fellow party members and so had to be put down by said fellow party members for their own survival.

Fluff wise it's a pain, yes, but mechanically it's pretty much the same.

I recognize that enchantment has the potential to be very powerful. Killing something removes an obstacle; charming it lets you add your enemies strength to your own. However, making many enemies simply immune to enchantment is not good design, IMO. That falls into the problem of your character being "great when it works, horrible when it doesn't".
And then the game comes down to how much your DM likes or hates you.



I generally like the idea of what you're suggesting...but I think that this is taking things too far. The intention behind Enchantment seems clear: it works on living animals. Plants and oozes are immune because they're not animals; constructs and undead, because they're not living.

Why does it work on elementals and outsiders, then? Actually, come to think of it, maybe I should add elementals to the "Brainless" category.

As for oozes and plants; they're not "animals" only by the in-game definition of the word. In terms of mechanics, a plant-creature and an animal-creature can perform nearly identical actions, and are vulnerable to many of the same things. You can mind control a tree, but it can't get up and walk around so there's really no point. But when you have walking, carvivorous plants, I would assume they probably have some sort of survival instinct you can tap into.



The point being that Enchantment that can work on undead, constructs, plants, and oozes, becomes...well, weird to think about.

It doesn't exactly work on all of them though; that's why constructs and undead just get confused.
Anyone who likes can ignore the "brainless" section, and simply apply the new definition of "mindless" to everything. But with spells like Control Plants and Control Undead, the game certainly makes it possible to sieze control of those creature types.



I recommend, though, that if you want to really make Enchantment make more sense, then Necromancy spells like cause fear should be made into Enchantment spells.

To make things up to Necromancy, make the cure spells and the like Necromancy spells.

I actually suggested doing exactly that; its a line of text below the other rules. I'll add a bolded heading so it's easier to see.

And in my magic fix, I did precisely what you're talking about with necromancy and positive/negative energy.



Well... I've always been a proponent of changing those spells, getting rid of those spells, or making PCs immune to those spells (just because they are PCs).

Those spells just are horrid for PC vs PC fights and really cause some PCs to go on power trips.

@Deepbluediver: I like your changes and will try to play with these during a session or two and see how it is.

Thanks! Let me know how it works out. One of the things I was uncertain about was the value of the bonus. +5/+10 seemed a little high (+10 is practically immunity anyway), but I could do something like making them both +5 or +4/+8, etc.

In another recent thread, I expressed my confusion between the designations of "charm" and "compulsion", which are the existing subschools of enchantment. Maybe we should redefine a small number of spells, specifically the most direct and common "mind-control" effects into a subschool of their own, to which PCs get some sort of resistance to. +1/per 2 or 3 HD, maybe.

Gamewise there's no real explanation for this beyond the PCs being the chosen heroes, but metagame wise it's because those spells make things less fun.


Does enchantment even need this type of help? :smallconfused:

I'm serious. The massive enchantment resistance of things shouldn't hurt an enchanter unless everything you run into (such as in a zombie apocalypse game) has immunity. Having Mind-controlled servants means being able to sick them against those targets that you can't mind control and other enchantment buffs (like heroism) help make this even better.

That's sort of like the argument I was making before: enchantment is good when it works, but some types of enemies just shut it down entirely. And I don't really like that.

Neither of the two Control spells I mentioned (Plants and Undead) have the "mind-affecting" designation, and I wouldn't suggest adding it. They are still enchantments, but since they target creatures without minds, they work a little differently. Spell resistance and everything else can still apply.
Really all I've done is make it possible to scare or hypnotize a few more types of creatures that where previously immune.

If you want, maybe we should consider adding in a few Control spells for other creature types as well, such as Oozes, Dragons, Aberrations, etc. (we've already got Planar Binding for outsiders)

[Rogue Shadows]

Fluff wise it's a pain, yes, but mechanically it's pretty much the same.

No, mechanically it's completely different, in that it's amazingly better. A successful dominate person is, mechanically, essentially identical to summon monster and disintegrate in that is simultaneously adds a new enemy and takes out an ally. Only it's better than any summoning spell because the person who cast it now has someone with full WBL and probably a much more focused skill, feat, and spell/power/whatever selection then anything that could ordinarily be summoned.


Why does it work on elementals and outsiders, then? Actually, come to think of it, maybe I should add elementals to the "Brainless" category.

Valid point, I suppose, but the Enchantment you're suggesting has nothing being immune. How can you enchant an animated object? It doesn't have any kind of brain or thought patterns. It's basically animated to follow a series of IF/THEN statements. Any illusion of sentience is just that: an illusion. Ditto zombies and skeletons.

I think it would be better if, rather than what you're suggesting of just blanket changing entire types at a time, you simply applied the Mindless quality (as it currently exists, not your version) on a case-by-case basis. Anything with no INT should be immune to Enchantment, because they by definition have no intelligence for Enchantment to manipulate. So Zombies are immune, but Vampires are not, though they should still get some resistance because their minds aren't quite working normally, being dead matter.


Anyone who likes can ignore the "brainless" section, and simply apply the new definition of "mindless" to everything. But with spells like Control Plants and Control Undead, the game certainly makes it possible to sieze control of those creature types.

Yes, but by applying a totally different type of magic. Control Undead applies Necromancy, the magic of life, death, and the dead. You're not manipulating their minds, you're manipulating the necromantic energy that is allowing them to be animate. Control Plants is a transmutation. You're manipulating their physical bodies and beings, not their minds.

Otherwise Imma take the same argument you have right now and apply it to control water. Why shouldn't enchanters be able to control water? Tim the Enchanter could control fire.


That's sort of like the argument I was making before: enchantment is good when it works, but some types of enemies just shut it down entirely. And I don't really like that.

Enchantment isn't good when it works; Enchantment is broken when it works and put in the hands of a competent player. Enchantment with the essentially no restrictions you've proposed (because any well-built Enchanter will be able to laugh at the minor bonus that Brainless and Mindless applies) would be a shoe-in for the most powerful school of magic, something it's already in the running for.

You shouldn't be looking at this from a purely mechanical point of view...otherwise there's no good reason for Conjuration not to get fireball and simply fluff it as conjuring fire from the Plane of Fire; or for Divination to not get animal messenger on account of the fact that it involves relating information, or Transmutation to get every God-damned thing ever because you could easily fluff everything as simply manipulating the physical properties of something.

[Realms of Chaos]

That's sort of like the argument I was making before: enchantment is good when it works, but some types of enemies just shut it down entirely. And I don't really like that.

Except... they don't really shut it down at all. :smallconfused:

My argument is that, because enchantment lets you pick up semi-permanent minions, being unable to target enemies directly isn't anything more than a tiny hindrance in the grand scale.

Sure, an enchanter can't enchant a nearby gelatinous cube. That's why you've brought a whole bunch of ogre "friends" from a nearby den to kill the thing for you while enhanced by your buffs. It essentially doesn't matter at all if you can target your opponent directly because Enchantment is famous as one of the few schools you can use to deal with targets without ever needing to target them.

Beyond simply shutting creatures down (a powerful task already), the ability to gain control of any creature without resistance/immunity and essentially gain all of their powers and abilities at your disposal (possibly for days) is HUGE and probably broken.

Yeah, if you approach enchantment like a mindbender (with a few precise mind-controls to take care of the enemy immediately at hand), enchantment faces a lot of hate. When you treat it more like a thrallherd (basically gaining leadership with fewer restrictions and more cohorts instead of followers), however, there are VERY few games that won't function in and enchantment is actually one of the most powerful schools in existence (a bit less versatile than conjuration, perhaps, but not nearly as hated as you seem to imply).

Yes, there are ways around enchantment. Tons of them. The thing is, those are the only real things stopping a creature from becoming yet-another servant and enchanters shouldn't notice them all that often.

[Deepbluediver]

No, mechanically it's completely different, in that it's amazingly better. A successful dominate person is, mechanically, essentially identical to summon monster and disintegrate in that is simultaneously adds a new enemy and takes out an ally. Only it's better than any summoning spell because the person who cast it now has someone with full WBL and probably a much more focused skill, feat, and spell/power/whatever selection then anything that could ordinarily be summoned.

Ok, granted, but the vast majority of PC's are still humanoids or one of the other types of creatures vulnerable to regular mind control. My rules do nothing to change that. I'd welcome a solution that allows PCs to avoid being Mind Controlled that isn't just having them all turn into vampires.



Valid point, I suppose, but the Enchantment you're suggesting has nothing being immune. How can you enchant an animated object? It doesn't have any kind of brain or thought patterns. It's basically animated to follow a series of IF/THEN statements. Any illusion of sentience is just that: an illusion. Ditto zombies and skeletons.
....
Anything with no INT should be immune to Enchantment, because they by definition have no intelligence for Enchantment to manipulate.

How do you think enchantment works? Ok, it's magic so we're really ALL making this up, but here's how I picture it:

Every person's brain has sets of thought processes that it knows, so when you think "I want to stab that guy" you brain can send the right instructions to your body.
Unless a caster wants to spend hours at a time sending mental commands like "lift right knee shift right foot 18 inches forward place foot on ground shift weight to left ankle lift left knee etc etc etc" then a necromatic skeleton needs to have a similar set of instructions for "walk, attack, guard" or whatever else you want it to do.

What an enchantment spell is targeting is in fact those little sets of instructions (which is why I compared the undead and constructs to computer programs). Because oozes and plants and vermin have survival instincts and behavior patterns, they are subject to the same sort of enchantment spells (fear, daze, etc) as any other animal. Their irregular physiology simply makes them more resistant to it.
Undead and constructs often don't have many of those same instincts, (what's the points of a zombie with a "flight or fight response?) so instead the mental triggers get screwed up, and the creature becomes confused.



Yes, but by applying a totally different type of magic. Control Undead applies Necromancy, the magic of life, death, and the dead. You're not manipulating their minds, you're manipulating the necromantic energy that is allowing them to be animate. Control Plants is a transmutation. You're manipulating their physical bodies and beings, not their minds.

But you're NOT manipulating their body. Here's a psionic power called Control Body (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/controlBody.htm) which spells out what you can and can't do when you are physically forcing some one to do something, but don't have mental control. None of the Enchantment spells really work like that though. They all follow the basic format of "send a command, the creature obeys". So by my logic, anything that you can send a command to should be subject to mental interference, aka enchantment.



Otherwise Imma take the same argument you have right now and apply it to control water. Why shouldn't enchanters be able to control water? Tim the Enchanter could control fire.

Does Charm Person allow you to make some one fly? Of course not.
You can send the command, but your target has no means to obey it.

I already gave the example that you could enchant a tree but that it wouldn't get you anything, since trees can't recieve commands, and even if they could you can't instruct it to do something it wouldn't be able to do normally.
A fire or a puddle of water cannot jump up and attack something, a zombie or a golem or a swarm of rats can.



Enchantment isn't good when it works; Enchantment is broken when it works and put in the hands of a competent player. Enchantment with the essentially no restrictions you've proposed (because any well-built Enchanter will be able to laugh at the minor bonus that Brainless and Mindless applies) would be a shoe-in for the most powerful school of magic, something it's already in the running for.

That's a totally different argument than the one you where making earlier. This argument is not "what you're saying doesn't make sense", this argument is "I'm making arbitrary exceptions to the rules because I don't like it when players take advantage of them".

Magic, all magic, in D&D is broken to some degree. The system doesn't work. I actually tried to fix it; the thread detailing everything I had to do to achieve a semblance of balance is in my extended sig, if you are interested, and the project is ongoing. This is part of it. And as far as I can tell, even in a core game my rules don't really make things more broken then they already are.

As it stands, the solution to "enchantment is too powerful" is apparently "enchantment doesn't work at all". As I've said, IMO that's a bad solution.

If you think that the bonuses to resist these affects are to low, then give me what you think would be a good range. And please keep in mind that any resistance so high it is effectively immune is not a "resistance" at all.



You shouldn't be looking at this from a purely mechanical point of view...otherwise there's no good reason for Conjuration not to get fireball and simply fluff it as conjuring fire from the Plane of Fire; or for Divination to not get animal messenger on account of the fact that it involves relating information, or Transmutation to get every God-damned thing ever because you could easily fluff everything as simply manipulating the physical properties of something.

It's funny how discussions of magic frequently boil down to the same topics. Here is my thread regarding debate about the various spell-schools (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=264327). I don't think it's past the 6-week limit yet, but if you want to leave a comment let me know and I'll restart it.
The descriptions of spell schools given in Core are vague, at best, and WotC frequently seemed to ignore them anyway, often without any fluffy or mechanical explanation.

In my book, Enchantment (and enchantment alone) is the school that lets you exert mental influence over creatures, and all creatures have some sort of behavior or psuedo-intellect that Enchantment can target. That is the definition of a "creature", versus an object or some elemental force.

[Rogue Shadows]

Ok, granted, but the vast majority of PC's are still humanoids or one of the other types of creatures vulnerable to regular mind control. My rules do nothing to change that. I'd welcome a solution that allows PCs to avoid being Mind Controlled that isn't just having them all turn into vampires.

It's a vice-versa thing as well. It makes encounters too easy. Lord Badguy and his Evil Henchman show up. The Enchanter yawns, dominates, and has Lord Badguy eaten by his Evil Henchman. Or, if he prefers, his Evil Henchman skewered by Lord Badguy. Point being that he turned an encounter of 1 Enchanter verses 2 villains into 1 Enchanter, 1 dominated ally of the Enchanter, and 1 villain who is now outmatched.

Obviously you can throw in more villains, but this just means that you need mass suggestion, or maybe a few castings of dominate, each one of which does double duty of simultaneously removing enemies and creating allies. It's like casting two spells in one turn at no additional cost! That's crazy awesome.

There are no numbers to fix this. Either the number will be too low and too easy to hit; or so high that it's practically impossible to hit, and so we're back to functionally having Mindless anyway, except that now a dedicated Enchanter build can get past Mindless if they're really crankin' into their caster check.


(what's the points of a zombie with a "flight or fight response?)

Preservation of minions, conservation of assets. Zombies ain't cheap to animate, you know, especially at lower levels.


None of the Enchantment spells really work like that though.

None of the Enchantment spells are psionic powers. There are psionic powers that function like them, but they're not them, they're psionic powers.

Look, this isn't even restricted to D&D. When was the last time you saw Professor Xavier reading the mind of a Sentinel? Q could take control of Data, but then Q was a god. There were innumerable times when Data was specifically immune to the stuff affecting the rest of the crew because Data was an android instead of a living being.

Constructs, robots, androids, whatever you want to call them, are immune to mind control. This isn't a trait of D&D, it's a fact in the public consciousness.

As for INT -- creatures, they're not acting on any kind of mind, they're reacting to external stimuli or pre-programmed IF/THEN statements. A gelatinous cube absorbs things for the same reason that water erodes stone: it's just a property of the cube, essentially a chemical reaction. They are alive in the most technical of senses, but unless you want Enchantment to work on bacteria cells and random trees, then Enchantment shouldn't work on them.


Does Charm Person allow you to make some one fly? Of course not.
You can send the command, but your target has no means to obey it.

It totally can make a person fly, actually, provided the person has access to flight, such as by a potion of fly. But that's beside the point. By your argument, an Enchanter should be able to control water within the limits of what water can natural do: boil, freeze, etc. Chemical reactions which are all nonintelligent oozes like the gelatinous cube are acting upon.


I already gave the example that you could enchant a tree but that it wouldn't get you anything, since trees can't recieve commands, and even if they could you can't instruct it to do something it wouldn't be able to do normally.
A fire or a puddle of water cannot jump up and attack something,

You forget, this is D&D, a ridiculous world of magic: trees, fire, and water can jump up and attack things, with the proper magic. If transmutation is good enough, why not enchantment?

Because it's hideously unbalanced in favor of enchantment, that's why. It is hideously broken even within the context of magic in general being hideously broken.

As for enchantment immunity being a bad solution, I personally don't find it any more of a bad solution in theory than the (fire) subtype granting a blanket immunity to fire.

Now, as for the execution, I agree that it could use work: some undead should be affect-able, some plants, all vermin, anything with an INT score that is not a construct. But not zombies. Not gelatinous cubes.


In my book, Enchantment (and enchantment alone) is the school that lets you exert mental influence over creatures,

Well, this is wrong. All magic lets you exert mental influence over everything. Enchantment is specifically the school that lets you exert mental influence over creatures by manipulating their minds. No mind, no enchantment.


That is the definition of a "creature", versus an object or some elemental force.

Not in D&D. A creature is anything that has a WIS or CHA score, but to be affected by Enchantment it needs an INT score: be able to think, learn, or remember. A zombie does not think or learn or remember. It is programmed with IF/THEN statements and reacts according to them. A zombie told to walk into a wall will always walk into a wall, and never stop doing it until ordered otherwise, and always walk into the wall in the same way. If it could think, it would stop walking into the wall eventually, because it's stupid and pointless. If it could learn, then it would learn to not walk into the wall because it's stupid and pointless, or else figure out a more efficient way of walking into the wall. And if it could remember, you could ask a zombie a question about who just walked by and it'd be able to answer of its own accord. But you can't do that, not even with speak with dead, which specifies that you can learn something that the corpse knew in life. Why not in death? Because it doesn't remember anything from after it died. It can't even remember if it was subject to a speak with dead previously.

Look, again, if you want to rule that Enchantment has a chance to work on anything with an INT score, I'll support that, basically, though I think constructs should still receive a blanket immunity because that's how robots work, damnit. But there is zero reason why Enchantment should work on a zombie or skeleton or anything else with no INT.

[Deepbluediver]

Every time Rogue and I banter back and forth the replies get longer. I have spoilered my latest comments in an attempt to keep the post-length from overwhelming this thread.


It's a vice-versa thing as well. It makes encounters too easy. Lord Badguy and his Evil Henchman show up. The Enchanter yawns, dominates, and has Lord Badguy eaten by his Evil Henchman. Or, if he prefers, his Evil Henchman skewered by Lord Badguy. Point being that he turned an encounter of 1 Enchanter verses 2 villains into 1 Enchanter, 1 dominated ally of the Enchanter, and 1 villain who is now outmatched.

If that's your problem, then in your core-only games I guess the only bad guys that show up are one of the five mindless types; my rules don't really change much of that. Plus it's like I said: the solution to your enchanting issue is STILL apparently "make all the really imporant characters immune".



There are no numbers to fix this. Either the number will be too low and too easy to hit; or so high that it's practically impossible to hit, and so we're back to functionally having Mindless anyway, except that now a dedicated Enchanter build can get past Mindless if they're really crankin' into their caster check.

There has to be a middle ground somewhere in there. If it's too narrow, then we need to alter the rules to expand that sweet spot.

All other things being equal, I feel that an average person should suceed approx. 50% of the time. Of course, players tend to dedicate themselves to a few specialties, so if they are attempting something they are supposed to be good at, they should succeed 60-90% of the time. This is my opinion, I admit, but it give us a range to aim for.

Of course, if the enemy is dedicating himself to NOT being mind controlled, then the chance of success shifts down again.



Preservation of minions, conservation of assets. Zombies ain't cheap to animate, you know, especially at lower levels.

I think you may have forgotten or be misunderstanding my rule changes. The undead and constructs still can't be scared or hypnotized or controlled by most other effects. Any mind-affecting ability that penetrates just confuses them, which means at best you are still taking a blind chance.

Very few casters actually count on spell-schools, and the ones that do have very few limits anyway. Changing Control Undead to an enchantment doesn't seem like it would affect game balance much at all.



Look, this isn't even restricted to D&D. When was the last time you saw Professor Xavier reading the mind of a Sentinel? Q could take control of Data, but then Q was a god. There were innumerable times when Data was specifically immune to the stuff affecting the rest of the crew because Data was an android instead of a living being.

Constructs, robots, androids, whatever you want to call them, are immune to mind control. This isn't a trait of D&D, it's a fact in the public consciousness.

If your D&D world had robots or androids I would agree that Enchantment does not affect them. Constructs and undead are not robots though. They are essentially magicly-empowered statues. What's Enchantment? A form of magic.

I'm pretty sure that there where a few mutants who could interact with computers or other electronics. These X-men should have been able to affect a sentinel, because they are operating on the same mechanical principle.

Enchantment is a kind of magic that affects thoughts and behavoirs, and interferes with the signals your brain sends to the rest of your body. Constructs and the undead are magically empowered and recieve mental commands, which is why Enchantment can mess that up. See how it all fits together?



As for INT -- creatures, they're not acting on any kind of mind, they're reacting to external stimuli or pre-programmed IF/THEN statements. A gelatinous cube absorbs things for the same reason that water erodes stone: it's just a property of the cube, essentially a chemical reaction. They are alive in the most technical of senses, but unless you want Enchantment to work on bacteria cells and random trees, then Enchantment shouldn't work on them.
....
It totally can make a person fly, actually, provided the person has access to flight, such as by a potion of fly. But that's beside the point. By your argument, an Enchanter should be able to control water within the limits of what water can natural do: boil, freeze, etc. Chemical reactions which are all nonintelligent oozes like the gelatinous cube are acting upon.
....
You forget, this is D&D, a ridiculous world of magic: trees, fire, and water can jump up and attack things, with the proper magic. If transmutation is good enough, why not enchantment?

I'm feeling like you are being pointlessly obtuse about this. Yes, there is no reason you couldn't design an enchantment spell to affect trees or bacteria. But the only commands you could give them would be to do things they could normally do anyway.

A person can't fly because he's Charmed, he can fly because he drank a potion, which he could have done without being enchanted. A puddle of water can't freeze or boil or move on it's own while being controlled by an enchantment, because it does not contain any mechanism to do so.
If you use Evocation or Transmutation to affect the water then that's not enchanting, and the spell Control Water would not be moved into the Enchanting school because it doesn't target a creature.

An ooze, primitive as it may be, still has some sort of overarching mechanism coordinating everything. If there wasn't, then all parts of an ooze would just move randomly, essentially causing a perpetual siezure. The fact that an ooze can move or make a slam attack or divide into more oozes tells me that there is some mechanism by which it controls itself.

Still, I am willing to admit that perhaps an ooze is so primitive that it lacks basica survival instincts, in which case it would be Mindless instead of Brainless. But that still means the signals that run through it's body can be affected, and the ooze can be confused.



Because it's hideously unbalanced in favor of enchantment, that's why. It is hideously broken even within the context of magic in general being hideously broken.

As for enchantment immunity being a bad solution, I personally don't find it any more of a bad solution in theory than the (fire) subtype granting a blanket immunity to fire.

Then the rules for Enchantment should be altered. "Fire" isn't a school of magic, or even a theme of magic. An Evocationist or Conjuror, when faced with a fire-immune enemy, can switch to lightning or acid or force, and still play as the blasty-magic-archer they wanted to play as. When faced with an enemy with immnunity to mind affecting spells, that pretty much rules out the entire school of Enchantment.



Now, as for the execution, I agree that it could use work: some undead should be affect-able, some plants, all vermin, anything with an INT score that is not a construct. But not zombies. Not gelatinous cubes.

Earlier you said "Control Undead applies Necromancy, the magic of life, death, and the dead. You're not manipulating their minds, you're manipulating the necromantic energy that is allowing them to be animate."

The exact text of the spell dictates that you need to speak to the undead, and they hear and obey. Which means that there is some system for recieving commands, and processing them into action. What enchantment does with a regular creature is interfere with that chain of events, either within the brain or from the brain to the limbs. So why can't it do the same to the Undead?

At the very least, it seems like Control Undead should be a dual-school spell with both Necromancy and Enchantment. Actually, sorry. I forgot the dual-school rules are dumb as bricks, and I homebrewed my own.
Let me rephrase: it seems like Control Undead or a similar spell should be available to both the Necromancy and Enchantment schools.



Well, this is wrong. All magic lets you exert mental influence over everything.

Sorry, but I think that you are actually the one who is wrong here.
Enchantment lets you exert mental influence over creatures.
Transmutation lets you exert mental influence over matter, (most specifically molecular bonds).
Evocation lets you exert mental influence over elemental energy.
Conjuration lets you exert mental influence over planar boundaries.
Necromancy lets you exert mental influence over metaphysical energy (positive and negative) and souls.

So no, every kind of magic DOES NOT let you exert mental influence over EVERYTHING. Each type of magic should be very specifically defined, and unfortunately many of the core school-designations piss all over that. But it doesn't mean that enchanting effects shouldn't be Enchantments.



Enchantment is specifically the school that lets you exert mental influence over creatures by manipulating their minds. No mind, no enchantment.

Enchantments can affect humanoids, animals, elementals, outsiders, dragons, magical beasts, aberrations, and a few other types.
Many of these creatures are sentient and free-willed,however...
Animals are not sentient.
Elementals are composed of some strange mix of matter and energy.
Outsiders do not have a seperate body and soul.
And Aberrations have very strange physiology.

But all of them can be affected by some of the same enchantments. What common characteristic do they share that lets you define what a "mind" is?
I think it is much simpler and more straightforward to say that enchantments can affect all CREATURES to some degree. This is also why I left the caveat in place that for creatures that are radically different (constructs, undead, & now oozes) they don't necessarily affect them in the same way.



Not in D&D. A creature is anything that has a WIS or CHA score, but to be affected by Enchantment it needs an INT score: be able to think, learn, or remember. A zombie does not think or learn or remember. It is programmed with IF/THEN statements and reacts according to them. A zombie told to walk into a wall will always walk into a wall, and never stop doing it until ordered otherwise, and always walk into the wall in the same way.

What tells a zombie what the word "walk" means? What allows a zombie to remain balanced and in motion, one foot in front of the other? (have you ever watched modern bipedal robots try and walk? apparently it's complicated as heck)
What tells a zombie to keep walking once you stop concentrating?

You could use a spell like Mage Hand to control a zombie like a puppet, but that would require constant attention on a single creature, and as soon as you stopped it would collapse to the ground.
The various spells in D&D don't work like that. They allow you to give some command and then leave, and the command will still be followed out. What is ensuring this process?

And please don't say "negative energy" becaus then the question just becomes, "What tells negative energy what the word "walk" means?" etc etc etc. At some point in the process, there needs to be something intellectual dictating what the zombie does.

If your brain is an intelligence, the the zombie's brain is an artificial intelligence. But a very stupid one. A spell like Cause Fear tells your brain "this is scary, run away". A zombie's brain doesn't know what "scary" means, but it knows it's being told to do something. So the zombie's computer program tries to execute that command, and it either does nothing(represented by the undead's resistance) or it activates but messes up, and the zombie gets confused.



Look, again, if you want to rule that Enchantment has a chance to work on anything with an INT score, I'll support that, basically, though I think constructs should still receive a blanket immunity because that's how robots work, damnit. But there is zero reason why Enchantment should work on a zombie or skeleton or anything else with no INT.

Since you where so concerned about game balance, I decided to see how you had addressed these problems in your spell-fix.
Charm Person is apparently gone, or it's name has been changed and I haven't found it yet. Calm emotions though seems like a pretty close replacement. It doesn't make everyone your friend, but it does stop them from attacking you. The duration is noticeable shorter.
Control Undead is unchanged.
Dominate Person seems mostly unchanged, though it's unclear if the spell ends if the target leaves the original range. It still has the utterly ridiculous duration of 1 day/level.

I haven't read your entire 3.5 fix, perhaps magic has been changed in other ways which makes it less powerful.



My argument is that, because enchantment lets you pick up semi-permanent minions, being unable to target enemies directly isn't anything more than a tiny hindrance in the grand scale.
*snip*
Yes, there are ways around enchantment. Tons of them. The thing is, those are the only real things stopping a creature from becoming yet-another servant and enchanters shouldn't notice them all that often.

Sorry for responding to the other post first, it seemed to require a more detailed reply. It seems like your post can mostly be summed as "enchanting is VERY powerful, and if not for the widespread immunities it would rapidly push every class with enchanting into Tier 0". (I realize I'm simplifying somewhat)

I don't think most people would say Cause Fear is the broken spell here. People have a problem with spells like Dominate Person. And yet WotC had some idea of limiting power, because spells like Charm Person have a shorter duration, and spells like Control Undead are higher level. I will make an attempt at rewritting a few of the most obviously troublesome enchantments for your evaluation.

[Rogue Shadows]

I haven't read your entire 3.5 fix, perhaps magic has been changed in other ways which makes it less powerful.

Spells are gained later. They cap out at 7th level, and they gain new spell levels only at 3rd level and every 3 levels thereafter. So a 4th-level spell, for example, is gained at 9th level instead of 7th.


If that's your problem, then in your core-only games

Who ever said anything about core only?


I'm pretty sure that there where a few mutants who could interact with computers or other electronics.

But never people. They're completely different abilities.


Enchantment is a kind of magic that affects thoughts and behavoirs, and and interferes with the signals your brian sends to the rest of your body. Constructs and the undead are magically empowered and recieve mental commands, which is why Enchantment can mess that up. See how it all fits together?

I know how you want it to connect together, but I can't see a logical reason for it to. By this logic a shocker lizard should be able to control creatures because it has control over electricity, which is part of what controls the brain of a living creature.

[Deepbluediver]

Spells are gained later. They cap out at 7th level, and they gain new spell levels only at 3rd level and every 3 levels thereafter. So a 4th-level spell, for example, is gained at 9th level instead of 7th.

While higher level characters are occasionally better equipped to deal with certain problems, this really just seems to delay the issue, rather than solve it.


Who ever said anything about core only?

Sorry, I meant to say "RAW" games. What non-core features do you use to prevent the kind of problems you outlined?


But never people. They're completely different abilities.

So how come Enchantment spells can affect Humanoids, Animals, Magical Beast, Outsiders and Elementals all the same? What common factor do these creatures have that an undead or construct does not?
And please be specific. If you say something like "they have a mind" then define what you mean by that.


I know how you want it to connect together, but I can't see a logical reason for it to. By this logic a shocker lizard should be able to control creatures because it has control over electricity, which is part of what controls the brain of a living creature.

I've feel as if I've been very explicit about what my new rules can and can't do, and you keep coming up with the most ridiculous assertions. The electricty produced by a shocker lizard is several orders of magnitude greater than the bio-electric signals used by your body, and the lizard cannot control them minutely enough to force your body into certain actions (nothing in the MM indicates this in the slightest, to my knowledge).

When you get hit with electricity in D&D, it causes damage. When you get hit with electricity in real life, it short circuts your bodies natural systems, causing muscle spasms and convulsions. Much in the same way, when enchantment magic interferes with the magic that controls and drives an undead or construct, those creatures stop acting normally and become confused.


What I'm saying is, an Enchantment spell doesn't target something physical like a brain or a nervous system. Look at all the many different types of creatures Enchantments can affect; there is not common physical or biological trait that links all of them.
What an Enchantment targets is something much more basic, but also less tangible: it targets the thoughts in your head (or wherever else the your thoughts originate from). The thoughts in a zombie's or golem's head aren't its own thoughts, but they are thoughts nonetheless.

You can go a long ways towards convincing me that I'm wrong about this by answering the same question that originally started me thinking along this path: how does a skeleton know what the word "walk" means?



And I'm still working on those updated versions of enchantment spells.

[Realms of Chaos]

It looks as though I ninja'd one of your replies up there by 1 minute so there's still an argument up there if you've missed it. :smalltongue:

[TopCheese]

I wouldn't say that +10 is immunity, way to many wizards can pump DCs.

A friend ran a one shot last night and I asked him to put in your rules. Some monsters had immunity, some had immunity to certain spells, and others had either a +4/+8 bonus.

Immunity to certain spells OR certain parts of spells seem to work the best. Like you get mental control of a mindless undead/golem but the Wizard has to work his words around the words of the master/creator.

Golem Master: Stay in this room and kill any living thing (including my self) that comes in here.

Enchanter: When making the link through enchantment is given that sentence as if he hacked into the magic between the golem and the master. The enchanter could then pretend to be the golem master and make new instructions but if they deviate to far from the original order it gets another save or just disreguards it.

Enchanter: "Just stand in the room and stare menacing at anyone who comes into the room including me" works.

Enchanter: "Follow me and do my bidding as we sack and pillage the world" (or anything like that haha) would not work since it is to far out there.

[Deepbluediver]

I wouldn't say that +10 is immunity, way to many wizards can pump DCs.

A friend ran a one shot last night and I asked him to put in your rules. Some monsters had immunity, some had immunity to certain spells, and others had either a +4/+8 bonus.

Ok, thank you very much for your efforts. I'll adjust the bonuses accordingly.



Immunity to certain spells OR certain parts of spells seem to work the best. Like you get mental control of a mindless undead/golem but the Wizard has to work his words around the words of the master/creator.

Enchanter: "Just stand in the room and stare menacing at anyone who comes into the room including me" works.

Enchanter: "Follow me and do my bidding as we sack and pillage the world" (or anything like that haha) would not work since it is to far out there.

That certainly makes sense. I had not originally anticipated allowing golems and other similar creatures to actually be controlled; my rules just let Enchantments screw up the orders they did have; basically an enchanter's spell list would have been less effective, but not totally useless.
I'm glad it worked out well.



I've also done some revised versions of a few of the simpler Enchantment spells. On the one hand, I've expanded the range of creatures that can potentially be affected or controlled, but on the other I've drastically shortened the duration of these and limited what creatures each one can effect at a given tiem, so that the "semi-permenant minion" issue should no longer be a problem.

Charm Creature
Enchantment [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Brd 1, Drd 1, Rgr 1, Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One creature of a certain type (see text)
Duration: 10 minutes/level
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes

When you first learn this spell, you must designate a creature type (such as humanoid, dragon, outsider, etc), and this spell can only target creatures of that chosen type. You may learn more than one version of this spell, however each one counts as an entirely new spell, meaning it consumes an additional spell known, must be recored seperately in a spellbook, and when preparing spells you must choose which variations you can cast that day.
Some classes may only have access to certain version of this spell. (ex. a Druid may only use Charm Animal, Charm Magical Beast, Charm Elemental, and Charm Fey).

This spell makes the targeted creature's attitude towards you improve by one step (ex. Unfriendly to Indifferent, Friendly to Helpful) as if you had made a successful Diplomacy check. For intelligent creatures they may regard you as more friendly or less threatening, less intelligent creatures may stop regarding you as prey or simply not worth the trouble.
The creature's new attitude alters it's behavior as appropriate, but the creature still remains mostly in control of it's own actions, and acts as it would under normal circumstances

Each time the charmed creature takes damage it gets a new Will Save to shake off the effects of the spell. When the spell breaks or the duration expires, the creature makes a Wisdom Check (DC=10+1/2 Caster level) to realize it was charmed. If the creature suceeds on the check, it's attitude towards you permenantly decreases by one step.

Each time a creature is affected by a Charm Creature spell, it gets a bonus to resist the effects of subsequent Charm Creature spells cast on it within 24 hours. This bonus is +5 to resist the initial casting, and +2 to each Will save made while under the effects of the spell. These bonuses are cumulative; for example there is no bonus against the first spell, a +5 bonus against the second, a +10 bonus against the third, etc etc etc.

Control Creature
Enchantment [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Brd 4, Drd 6, Sor/Wiz 5
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One creature of a certain type (see text)
Duration: 1 minute/level
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes

When you first learn this spell, you must designate a creature type, subject to the same rules as the Charm Creature spell.

This spell enables you to control the actions of one creature for a short period of time. If you and the subject have a common language, you can generally force the subject to perform as you desire, within the limits of its abilities. If no common language exists, you can communicate only basic commands, such as “Come here,” “Go there,” “Fight,” and “Stand still.” You must be able to speak to the creature to give it new orders. Once given a command, the subject will attempt to carry it out in a way that most closely mimics it's normal behavior.

Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +5 bonus. Obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out, and will also grant a saving throw to negate the effects of the spell, with a +5 bonus. Once control is established, the range at which it can be exercised is 100 ft+10 ft./level. If the creature moves beyond this range, the spell automatically ends.

When the spell breaks or the duration expires, the creature will remember that it was being controlled, and will act hostile towards you for 1d8 hours, doing it's best to follow, attack, and kill you. After this time it will revert to it's normal behavior, though intelligent creatures may hold a grudge for far longer.

Each time a creature is affected by a Control Creature spell, it gets a bonus to resist the effects of subsequent Control Creature spells cast on it within 24 hours. This bonus is +5 to resist the initial casting, and +2 to each Will save made while under the effects of the spell. These bonuses are cumulative; for example there is no bonus against the first spell, a +5 bonus against the second, a +10 bonus against the third, etc etc etc.

Dominate Creature
Enchantment [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Drd 9, Sor/Wiz 8
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One creature of a certain type (see text)
Duration: 1 round/level
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes

When you first learn this spell, you must designate a creature type, subject to the same rules as the Charm Creature spell.

You can control the actions of any creature through a telepathic link that you establish with the subject’s mind, and they understand you, no matter what language you speak. The creature will obey any command, even ones that run against it's normal behavior or are self-destructive in nature. The maximum range at which you can give new commands is 100 ft.+10 ft./level, and the spell automatically ends if the creature and the caster are on seperate planes, or the creature travels more than 1 mile/level from the caster.

Once you have given a dominated creature a command, it attempts to carry out that command to the best of it's ability and at the exclusion of all other activities. Changing your instructions or giving a dominated creature a new command is the equivalent of redirecting a spell, so it is a move action.

Dominating a creature is a constant mental struggle for control. Each round on it's turn the creature gets a new Will save to throw off control and negate the effects of the spell. When the spell breaks or the duration ends, the creature will remember it was controlled and most creatures will act permenantly Hostile towards you.

Each time a creature is affected by a Dominate Creature spell, it gets a bonus to resist the effects of subsequent Dominate Creature spells cast on it within 24 hours. This bonus is +5 to resist the initial casting, and +2 to each Will save made while under the effects of the spell. These bonuses are cumulative; for example there is no bonus against the first spell, a +5 bonus against the second, a +10 bonus against the third, etc etc etc.

Optional Rule
Each and every adventurer is secretly a follower of the ancient and mysterious god of GLORY. This secretive, enigmatic, and ancient deity does not have clerics or worshippers in the usual sense. Instead, it gains endless delight in watching the struggles and conflicts of the mortal races, in particular those of certain heroes and villians.

This diety cares nothing about alignment, allegiance, or other factors; it is only interested in the path which it's chosen observers take to reach their goal, and the individuality they display.

This deity confers secretive ability on those chosen to recieve it's blessing- an untyped bonus to resist some very specific spells: Charm, Control, and Dominate Creature. This bonus is equal to +1 per PC class level.

[TopCheese]

Ok, thank you very much for your efforts. I'll adjust the bonuses accordingly.




That certainly makes sense. I had not originally anticipated allowing golems and other similar creatures to actually be controlled; my rules just let Enchantments screw up the orders they did have; basically an enchanter's spell list would have been less effective, but not totally useless.
I'm glad it worked out well.



I've also done some revised versions of a few of the most iconic Enchantment spells. One the one hand, I've expanded the range of creatures that can potentially be affected or controlled, but on the other I've drastically shortened the duration of these, so that the "semi-permenant minion" issue should no longer be a problem.

Charm Creature
Enchantment [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Brd 1, Drd 1, Rgr 1, Sor/Wiz 1
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One creature of a certain type (see text)
Duration: 10 minutes/level
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes

When you first learn this spell, you must designate a creature type (such as humanoid, dragon, outsider, etc), and this spell can only target creatures of that chosen type. You may learn more than one version of this spell, however each one counts as an entirely new spell, meaning it consumes an additional spell known, must be recored seperately in a spellbook, and when preparing spells you must choose which variations you can cast that day.
Some classes may only have access to certain version of this spell. (ex. a Druid may only use Charm Animal, Charm Magical Beast, Charm Elemental, and Charm Fey).

This spell makes the targeted creature's attitude towards you improve by one step (ex. Unfriendly to Indifferent, Friendly to Helpful) as if you had made a successful Diplomacy check. For intelligent creatures they may regard you as more friendly or less threatening, less intelligent creatures may stop regarding you as prey or simply not worth the trouble.
The creature's new attitude alters it's behavior as appropriate, but the creature still remains mostly in control of it's own actions, and acts as it would under normal circumstances

Each time the charmed creature takes damage it gets a new Will Save to shake off the effects of the spell. When the spell breaks or the duration expires, the creature makes a Wisdom Check (DC=10+1/2 Caster level) to realize it was charmed. If the creature suceeds on the check, it's attitude towards you permenantly decreases by one step.

You can target a creature already under the effects of a Charm spell, either to refresh the effect before it ends or to increase the creatures attitude further, but each existing spell gives the creature a +5 bonus to it's Will save to resist the initial casting.

Control Creature
Enchantment [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Brd 4, Drd 6, Sor/Wiz 5
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One creature of a certain type (see text)
Duration: 1 minute/level
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes

When you first learn this spell, you must designate a creature type, subject to the same rules as the Charm Creature spell.

This spell enables you to control the actions of one creature for a short period of time. If you and the subject have a common language, you can generally force the subject to perform as you desire, within the limits of its abilities. If no common language exists, you can communicate only basic commands, such as “Come here,” “Go there,” “Fight,” and “Stand still.” You must be able to speak to the creature to give it new orders. Once given a command, the subject will attempt to carry it out in a way that most closely mimics it's normal behavior.

Subjects resist this control, and any subject forced to take actions against its nature receives a new saving throw with a +5 bonus. Obviously self-destructive orders are not carried out, and will also grant a saving throw to negate the effects of the spell, with a +5 bonus. Once control is established, the range at which it can be exercised is 100 ft+10 ft./level. If the creature moves beyond this range, the spell automatically ends.

When the spell breaks or the duration expires, the creature will remember that it was being controlled, and will act hostile towards you for 1d8 hours, doing it's best to follow, attack, and kill you. After this time it will revert to it's normal behavior, though intelligent creatures may hold a grudge for far longer.

You can target a creature already under the effects of a Control spell to refresh the effect before it ends, but each existing spell gives the creature a +5 bonus to it's Will save to resist the initial casting.

Dominate Creature
Enchantment [Mind-Affecting]
Level: Drd 9, Sor/Wiz 8
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One creature of a certain type (see text)
Duration: 1 round/level
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes

When you first learn this spell, you must designate a creature type, subject to the same rules as the Charm Creature spell.

You can control the actions of any creature through a telepathic link that you establish with the subject’s mind, and they understand you, no matter what language you speak. The creature will obey any command, even ones that run against it's normal behavior or are self-destructive in nature. The maximum range at which you can give new commands is 100 ft.+10 ft./level, and the spell automatically ends if the creature and the caster are on seperate planes, or the creature travels more than 1 mile/level from the caster.

Once you have given a dominated creature a command, it attempts to carry out that command to the best of it's ability and at the exclusion of all other activities. Changing your instructions or giving a dominated creature a new command is the equivalent of redirecting a spell, so it is a move action.

Dominating a creature is a constant mental struggle for control. Each round on it's turn the creature gets a new Will save to throw off control and negate the effects of the spell. When the spell breaks or the duration ends, the creature will remember it was controlled and most creatures will act permenantly Hostile towards you.

You can target a creature already under the effects of a Dominate spell to refresh the effect before it ends, but each existing spell gives the creature a +5 bonus to it's Will save to resist the initial casting.

Something I forgot to add, and this goes for most spells that grant control and such, why not make these controlling type spells and put in the PF Witch Hex clause?

The witch can only target a creature with a hex 1 time every 24 hrs (save or not). If you drop the duration of enchantment spells and give them this clause BUT open up enchantment like you want ... I think that could be the best way to do things.

Example

Enchantment Spells: Duration 1 round/level , a creature may only be targeted by this spell once every 24 hrs. If the target is told to do anything harmful to themselves (suicide) or to kill/directly harm a close friend this spell fails. If the target is attacked by the mage or the mmage's ally then this spell is broken. (Some higher level enchantments may change this)

So even if a PC vs PC brawl comes around... The mage can't just charm the fighter to win. However the mage can charm an enemy and make them do stupid things BUT doesn't gain an ally.

Open up more enemies to be hit by enchantments.
This keeps enchantment from being a disentigrate + summon monster

But then again I like your changes just fine, I'm just throwin in my 2cp.

[Yitzi]

Fluff wise it's a pain, yes, but mechanically it's pretty much the same.

I recognize that enchantment has the potential to be very powerful. Killing something removes an obstacle; charming it lets you add your enemies strength to your own. However, making many enemies simply immune to enchantment is not good design, IMO. That falls into the problem of your character being "great when it works, horrible when it doesn't".

Not really, as even an enchantment-focused caster will generally have some non-enchantment abilities.

[Deepbluediver]

Something I forgot to add, and this goes for most spells that grant control and such, why not make these controlling type spells and put in the PF Witch Hex clause?

The witch can only target a creature with a hex 1 time every 24 hrs (save or not). If you drop the duration of enchantment spells and give them this clause BUT open up enchantment like you want ... I think that could be the best way to do things.

Example

Enchantment Spells: Duration 1 round/level , a creature may only be targeted by this spell once every 24 hrs. If the target is told to do anything harmful to themselves (suicide) or to kill/directly harm a close friend this spell fails. If the target is attacked by the mage or the mmage's ally then this spell is broken. (Some higher level enchantments may change this)

Hmmm...I generally don't like arbitrary "you can't do this!" rules, but I really like the "targeted within 24 hours" idea. I think it works much better than my version.

I'll change it so every time you are targeted repeatedly with the same enchanting spell the bonus on your saves goes up. Logically, there's no good fluff reason I can think of for enchantment magic to work like this and not, Fireball, for example, but I'm willing to make the concession in the interest of fun.



So even if a PC vs PC brawl comes around... The mage can't just charm the fighter to win. However the mage can charm an enemy and make them do stupid things BUT doesn't gain an ally.

A PC vs PC brawl isn't always a bad thing...ok I guess technically it's always bad for the party, yes, but in terms of story-telling, tension, and in-game excitement it can be really memorable.

Also (and I realize this is dependent upon the players and the group) but if a player is mind-controlled into attacking their own party or something similar, they don't necessarily need to hand over control of their character to the DM. In at least one of the groups I played with back in school, we kept it light and friendly enough and people didn't hold grudges, so if your character got hit with this sort of effect, the DM would tell you your new motivation, and you still got to determine how your character went about it.
OOC: I know we're best friends and all, but hey, look, the demon just told me to kill you so...
IC: "Axe to the face"!
Or you can play it purposefully obtusely, and try to twist the commands to mean things you don't think they mean. Again, this could be very dependent on the group, but it's an option to keep in mind.



Not really, as even an enchantment-focused caster will generally have some non-enchantment abilities.

That's a nice sentiment, but it's not saying "enchantment can still work" it's saying "casters have other options". I wouldn't advocate that you make a wizard with access to only a single school of spells, because that's very limiting in terms of versatility. But by the same token, I don't like saying that an entire school of spells is useless in situations X, Y & Z.

Going by the RAW, targeting Plants, Ooze, Vermin, Undead, or Constructs with Enchantment spells was entirely pointless. My version of the rules changes things so that Enchantment spells can be used against some of these types, just with more difficulty, and in other situations they are much less effective, but not totally useless.
That's really all I was hoping to achieve: make it so that there was no situation where an enchantment spell was totally useless.

[TopCheese]

Hmmm...I generally don't like arbitrary "you can't do this!" rules, but I really like the "targeted within 24 hours" idea. I think it works much better than my version.

I'll change it so every time you are targeted repeatedly with the same enchanting spell the bonus on your saves goes up. Logically, there's no good fluff reason I can think of for enchantment magic to work like this and not, Fireball, for example, but I'm willing to make the concession in the interest of fun.




A PC vs PC brawl isn't always a bad thing...ok I guess technically it's always bad for the party, yes, but in terms of story-telling, tension, and in-game excitement it can be really memorable.

Also (and I realize this is dependent upon the players and the group) but if a player is mind-controlled into attacking their own party or something similar, they don't necessarily need to hand over control of their character to the DM. In at least one of the groups I played with back in school, we kept it light and friendly enough and people didn't hold grudges, so if your character got hit with this sort of effect, the DM would tell you your new motivation, and you still got to determine how your character went about it.
OOC: I know we're best friends and all, but hey, look, the demon just told me to kill you so...
IC: "Axe to the face"!
Or you can play it purposefully obtusely, and try to twist the commands to mean things you don't think they mean. Again, this could be very dependent on the group, but it's an option to keep in mind.




That's a nice sentiment, but it's not saying "enchantment can still work" it's saying "casters have other options". I wouldn't advocate that you make a wizard with access to only a single school of spells, because that's very limiting in terms of options. But by the same token, I don't like saying that an entire school of spells is useless in situations X, Y & Z.

Going by the RAW, targeting Plants, Ooze, Vermin, Undead, or Constructs with Enchantment spells was entirely pointless. My version of the rules changes things so that Enchantment spells can be used against some of these types, just with more difficulty, and in other situations they are much less effective, but not totally useless.
That's really all I was hoping to achieve: make it so that there was no situation where an enchantment spell was totally useless.


Hmmmmm

How about using the same spells you have created but then change the monsters?

Now I'm thinking like a golems/undead/oozes and such think like computers with survival insticts.

Basically like a password on your GiTP login screen you only get X tried before you get booted for 15 min.

Make instead of "you can do this 1/24 hrs" to "This golem may be targeted by a mage that did not create him up to 4 times (or 1 time) before it can no longer be hit with enchantment spells.

I could see a mage cast a charm/control whatever spell and it working once or twice but the third time the golem/undead whatever stops listening to the mage and goes only on its default programming.

This keeps the usage low but doesn't tell the PC "No you can't do that".

[Bohandas]

Honestly I would go even further and say that it woukd make more sense for vermin to automatically fail their saves against enchantment rather than be resistant or immune to it